Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training has attracted attention as a potentially effective method of perioperative clinical rehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures.

Purpose:

To (1) compare the effectiveness of low-load BFR training in conjunction with a standard rehabilitation protocol, pre- and postoperatively, and non-BFR interventions in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and (2) evaluate protocols for implementing BFR perioperatively for patients undergoing ACLR.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A systematic review of the 3 medical literature databases was conducted to identify all level 1 and 2 clinical trials published since 1990 on BFR in patients undergoing ACLR. Patient demographics from included studies were pooled. Outcome data were documented, including muscle strength and size, and perceived pain and exertion. A descriptive analysis of outcomes from BFR and non-BFR interventions was performed.

Results:

A total of 6 studies (154 patients; 66.2% male; mean ± SD age, 24.2 ± 3.68 years) were included. Of these, 2 studies examined low-load BFR as a preoperative intervention, 1 of which observed a significant increase in muscle isometric endurance (P = .014), surface electromyography of the vastus medialis (P < .001), and muscle blood flow to the vastus lateralis at final follow-up (P < .001) as compared with patients undergoing sham BFR. Four studies investigated low-load BFR as a postoperative intervention, and they observed significant benefits in muscle hypertrophy, as measured by cross-sectional area; strength, as measured by extensor torque; and subjective outcomes, as measured by subjective knee pain during session, over traditional low-load resistance training (all P < .05). BFR occlusion periods ranged from 3 to 5 minutes, with rest periods ranging from 45 seconds to 3 minutes.

Conclusion:

This systematic review found evidence on the topic of BFR rehabilitation after ACLR to be sparse and heterogeneous likely because of the relatively recent onset of its popularity. While a few authors have demonstrated the potential strength and hypertrophy benefits of perioperative BFR, future investigations with standardized outcomes, long-term follow-up, and more robust sample sizes are required to draw more definitive conclusions.

Keywords

blood flow restriction anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction clinical rehabilitation KAATSU

High-intensity resistance training can induce limb muscle hypertrophy and strength gains, which are desired outcomes in physical rehabilitation after surgery.² However, patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) cannot tolerate high-intensity training, defined as 60% to 85% of the 1 repetition maximum weight, in the immediate perioperative period.

Blood flow restriction (BFR) by the application of a pneumatic cuff to the lower extremity during low-intensity resistance training (approximately 20% of 1 repetition maximum weight) has been shown to significantly increase thigh muscle cross-sectional area, as well as carotid arterial and venous compliance, in healthy volunteers.^1,61 The anaerobic conditions of BFR induce an angiogenic stimulus through upregulation of vascular endothelial growth factor.^19,38 In addition, the hypoxic stimuli may stimulate the mobilization and recruitment of endothelial progenitor stem cells, improving the regenerative potential in healthy volunteers.⁵⁴ The muscle hypertrophy induced during low-intensity resistance training with BFR is an attractive method of postsurgical rehabilitation in ACLR in that it avoids placing high loads on the graft in the immediate postoperative period and provides rehabilitation options for the elderly and other patients with severe endurance or strength deficiency.

To date, there is a paucity of clinical data on BFR training and even fewer randomized controlled trials. The duration of the therapy, the intensity of the BFR (pressure), and that required to produce hypertrophic effects remain unclear.^31,47,60,73 Furthermore, given the recent increased awareness of this therapy, there is a myriad of new research with heterogeneous indications and results. For the aforementioned reasons, the purposes of the present systematic review are to (1) compare the effectiveness of low-load BFR (LL-BFR) training in conjunction with a rehabilitation protocol, pre- and postoperatively, versus non-BFR interventions in patients undergoing ACLR and (2) evaluate protocols for implementing BFR perioperatively for patients undergoing ACLR.

Methods

Search Strategy

This review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A literature search was undertaken to identify studies evaluating BFR training as a prehabilitation or rehabilitation protocol after ACLR for the period between January 1, 1990, and May 14, 2019, within the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases. The following search terms were used:

((((((((vascular occlusion) OR blood flow restriction) OR blood flow occlusion) OR kaatsu)) OR partial occlusion))) AND (((((((anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction) OR ACLR) OR anterior cruciate ligament surgery) OR ACL surgery) OR anterior cruciate ligament)).

Resulting articles from the search underwent title and abstract screening, and studies investigating the utility of BFR before or after ACLR were selected. An additional search through the reference list of eligible articles was performed. Systematic review registration was performed in May 2019 with the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Eligible studies were included after application of the following inclusion criteria: studies involving BFR as a prehabilitation or rehabilitation intervention in patients undergoing ACLR, English language in a scientific peer-reviewed journal, and level 1 or 2 evidence or qualification as a randomized controlled trial. Ongoing level 1 clinical trials without publication of complete data were not included.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Studies eligible for inclusion were screened independently by 2 reviewers (Y.L. and C.K.). Duplicates and those not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded. For the included studies, data extraction was inclusive of the following variables: (1) study design and population characteristics; (2) rehabilitation protocol, including device used, occlusion characteristics, exercise performed, and duration of BFR training; and (3) outcome measures, including muscle strength and size, perceived exertion and pain, and physical function. Data extraction was then performed with a custom spreadsheet. As almost all included studies evaluated different outcome measures, precluding a meta-analysis, we elected to proceed with a descriptive analysis of outcomes. Pooled demographic variables were calculated assuming independence of samples.

Study Quality and Reporting

Quality of the included studies was assessed with the Jadad score,³¹ which is a criterion for the evaluation and appraisal of randomized clinical trials. It is based on a composite score calculated from the following 3 metrics, with 1 point for an answer of yes and 0 points for an answer of no: (1) Is the study self-described as randomized? (2) Is the study self-described as double-blinded? (3) Does the study provide an adequate description of dropouts and withdrawals? After this initial assessment, secondary grading was performed on the basis of the following: an additional point was given if, for question 1, the method for randomization was described and was appropriate or, for question 2, the method of double-blinding was described and was appropriate. Conversely, a point was deducted if the methods for questions 1 and 2 were described and were inappropriate. Final scores for studies assessed may range from 0 to 5.

Additionally, an assessment of each study was performed with the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool,²⁴ a method created and validated by the Cochrane Collaboration to determine the risk of bias in randomized trials. The tool focuses on the various domains of trial design, conduct, and reporting and proposes a judgment regarding the relevant risk of bias within each domain, graded as “high risk,” “low risk,” or “some concern.” The domains include random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. If not enough information is provided in the methodology to make a judgment, the domain is listed as “not reported.”

Statistical Analysis

Age and body mass index of the study participants were extracted from the included studies and pooled with weighted means. All statistical analysis was performed with RStudio software (v 1.0.143; R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The database search yielded 25 articles. After initial title and abstract screening, 15 articles regarded the topic in question and were assessed for eligibility. From this selection, 6 studies were of level 1 evidence per the PRISMA statement and were included in the analysis, as illustrated by Figure 1. An overview of study characteristics is provided in Table 1. The Jadad scores for the included studies ranged from 2 to 4, indicating average to rigorous study quality based on randomization and blinding protocols. Using Cochrane risk assessment we found 1 study²⁶ was at high risk of bias in 1 category and 4 were at high risk in 2 categories (Table 2).

Figure 1.

Flowchart of study selection process.

Table 1

Overview of Study Characteristics ^a

Author (Year)	Level of Evidence	No.	Study Design	Jadad Score	Study Arms (No.)	Surgery Description	Graft Type
Zargi⁸³ (2018)	2	20	Prospective single-center quasi-randomized controlled trial with sham intervention Population: chronic ACL rupture (>6 mo) Country: Slovenia	4	Pre-ACLR BFR (12) Pre-ACLR sham BFR (12)	Arthroscopic single bundle	Double-stranded ipsilateral semitendinosus- gracilis autograft
Hughes²⁵ (2018)	2	30	Between-participant partially randomized controlled trial Population: ACL rupture, active nonsmokers Country: United Kingdom	2	Uninjured BFR (10) Post-ACLR BFR, light resistance (10) Post-ACLR, heavy resistance (10)	—	Hamstring tendon autograft
Grapar Zargi²² (2016)	2	20	Prospective single-center quasi-randomized controlled trial with sham intervention Population: chronic ACL rupture (>6 mo) Country: Slovenia	4	Pre-ACLR BFR (13) Pre-ACLR sham BFR (13)	Arthroscopic single bundle	Double-stranded ipsilateral semitendinosus- gracilis autograft
Iversen³⁰ (2016)	1	24	Randomized blinded controlled trial Population: acute ACL rupture (<6 mo) Country: Norway	4	Post-ACLR BFR (12) Post-ACLR nonrestricted activity (12)	—	Hamstring tendon autograft
Ohta⁵⁹ (2003)	1	44	Prospective randomized controlled trial Population: ACL rupture Country: Japan	3	Post-ACLR BFR (22) Post-ACLR nonrestricted activity (22)	—	Semitendinosus autograft
Takarada⁷³ (2000)	1	16	Controlled trial Population: ACL rupture Country: Japan	2	Post-ACLR BFR (8) Post-ACLR sham BFR (8)	—	—

^a Dashes signify not available. ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; BFR, blood flow restriction.

Table 2

Overview of Study Characteristics

	Random Sequence Generation	Allocation Concealment	Blinding of Participants and Personnel	Blinding of Outcome Assessment	Incomplete Outcome Data	Selective Reporting
Iversen³⁰ (2016)	Low risk	Low risk	Not reported	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk
Zargi⁸³ (2018)	High risk	High risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk
Grapar Zargi²² (2016)	High risk	High risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk
Hughes²⁵ (2018)	Low risk	High risk	Not reported	Not reported	Low risk	Low risk
Ohta⁵⁹ (2003)	High risk	High risk	Not reported	Not reported	Low risk	Low risk
Takarada⁷³ (2000)	High risk	High risk	Not reported	Not reported	Low risk	Low risk

Study Populations

Of the 6 studies, 2 each were from Slovenia and Japan^23,59,73,83 and 1 each from Norway and the United Kingdom.^26,31 Two studied preoperative rehabilitation before ACLR after a chronic injury,^23,83 while 4 studied^26,31,59,73 postoperative rehabilitation. Sample sizes ranged from 16 to 44. All studies were randomized into 2 study arms with 1 exception, which was stratified into 3 study arms.²⁶ Control arms in the trials were sham BFR in 3 studies,^23,73,83 nonrestricted activities in 2 studies,^31,59 and, for the study with 3 arms,²⁶ BFR on healthy knees and nonrestricted activity. A total of 154 patients were enrolled in the 6 studies. Pooled demographics of the included studies are as follows: the mean ± SD age was 29.5 ± 7.7 years; body mass index was 24.2 ± 3.68 kg/m²; and 66.2% of the patients were male (Table 3).

Table 3

Pooled Demographic Data of Included Studies

Patients, No.	154
Age, y, mean ± SD	29.5 ± 7.7
Male sex, %	66.2
Body mass index (n = 110), mean ± SD	24.2 ± 3.68

BFR Protocol

Detailed BFR protocols are provided in Table 4. BFR was used in conjunction with specifically outlined LL resistance training and/or low- to moderate-intensity postoperative rehabilitation. Training load ranged from body weight to 30% of 1 repetition maximum. Constant occlusion pressure was applied in 4 studies,^23,26,59,83 and escalating pressures were utilized in 2 studies.^31,73 Occlusive pressures ranged from 130 to 238 mm Hg, while cuff width ranged from 9 to 14 cm. BFR was achieved with occlusion cuffs in 2 studies^26,73 and tourniquets in 4 studies.^23,31,59,83 Duration of BFR exercise regimen ranged from 1 day²⁵ (to examine acute perceptual and hemodynamic responses) to 16 weeks, with frequency ranging from a single session over 48 hours to 6 sessions per week. One group reported on 2 daily BFR sessions.⁷³ Exercise volume ranged from 75 to 100 repetitions per session; in 2 studies,^23,83 volume was determined by number of repetitions to volitional failure.^23,83 BFR occlusion periods ranged from 3 to 5 minutes, with rest periods ranging from 45 seconds to 3 minutes.

Table 4

Overview of Study Protocols ^a

Author (Year)	Device Used	Occlusion Pressure/Cuff Width	Exercises	Volume and Frequency	Duration
Zargi⁸³ (2018)	Contoured pneumatic tourniquet cuff	Intervention: 150 mm Hg, 14 cm Sham: 20 mm Hg, 14 cm	Unilateral resisted knee extension in open kinetic chain on leg extension machine	Warm-up: 10-15 reps × 0.5 kg Working set: 30 s of resting occlusion, 6 sets to volitional failure. A metronome at 56 bpm is used to set rhythm/speed of exercise: 1 beat for eccentric contraction, 1 for eccentric Rest periods: 45 s without reperfusion after first, third, and fifth sets; 90 s with reperfusion after second and fourth sets	5 sessions over 8 d preop Last session performed within 48 h of surgery
Hughes²⁵ (2018)	Dual-purpose easy-fit variable contour nylon cuff	Intervention ACLR: 145 mm Hg, 11.5 cm Intervention uninjured: 138, 11.5 cm	Unilateral leg press	Warm-up: 5 min, unloaded cycling; 10 reps, unilateral leg press; 5-min rest Working sets: low-load BFR ACLR and BFR uninjured: 4 sets (30, 15, 15, 15 reps with 30-s interset rest) at 30% 1RM (1RM for uninjured BFR, 161 ± 44 kg; 1RM for ACLR-BFR, 61 ± 28 kg) throughout 0°-90° range of motion and contraction cycling of 1 s concentric / 1 s eccentric with BFR continuous at 80% limb occlusive pressure High-load ACLR: unilateral leg press (3 × 10 reps with 30-s interset rest) throughout 0°-90° range of motion at 70% 1RM (57 ± 17 kg)	1 session of familiarization and 1 session of BFR intervention over 2 d, starting at 22 d postop
Grapar Zargi²² (2016)	Contoured pneumatic tourniquet cuff	Intervention: 150 mm Hg, 14 cm Sham: 20 mg Hg, 14 cm	Unilateral resisted knee extension in open kinetic chain on leg extension machine	Warm-up: 10-15 reps × 0.5 kg Working set: 30 s of resting occlusion, 6 sets to volitional failure. A metronome at 56 bpm is used to set rhythm/speed of exercise: 1 beat for eccentric contraction, 1 for eccentric Rest periods: 45 s without reperfusion after first, third, and fifth sets. 90 s with reperfusion after second and fourth sets	5 sessions over 10 d preop Last session performed within 48 h of surgery
Iversen³⁰ (2016)	Contoured pneumatic tourniquet cuff	Starting pressure set to 130 mm Hg, increased by 10 mm Hg daily from postop days 2 to 14 up to maximum pressure of 180 mm Hg or highest tolerable pressure; 14 cm	Isometric quadriceps contractions Progressing to leg extension over a knee roll Straight leg raises	Warm-up: NA Working set: 20 reps during each 5-min occlusion period, totaling 100 reps per training session and 200 reps per day Rest periods: 3 min	2 sessions per day over 12 d, starting at day 2 postop, ending on day 14 postop; MRI on day 16 postop
Ohta⁵⁹ (2003)	Hand-pumped air tourniquet	180 mm Hg	Straight leg raise Hip joint abduction Half squat Elastic tube exercise (bending knee from 45° to 100°) Knee bend walking exercise (walking in half squat for 60 steps)	Warm-up: NA Working sets: Straight leg raise—performed 2 sets daily, 6 times weekly during weeks 1-8 after surgery. No load during week 1, 1-kg load for weeks 2-4, 2-kg load for weeks 5-8. Hip joint adduction—5-s maximum effort, repeated 20×, performed 2 sets daily, 6×/wk during weeks 1-12. Half squat—exercise maintained for 6 s, repeated 20×, 2 sets daily, 6× weekly during weeks 5-16 (5-6 wk, no load; 7-8 wk, 4- to 6-kg load; 9-12 wk, 8- to 10-kg load; 13-16 wk, 12- to 14-kg load). Elastic tube exercise—repeated 20×, 1 set daily, 6× weekly during weeks 9-12 postop, and 2 sets daily, 6× weekly during weeks 13-16. Knee bend walking exercise—3 sets daily, 6× weekly during weeks 13-16	6 sessions per week for 14 wk, starting at 2 wk postop, ending 16 wk postop
Takarada⁷³ (2000)	Pneumatic occlusion cuff	Initially 180 mm Hg, increased at 10 mm Hg intervals, maximum pressure at 238 mm Hg; 9 cm Sham: cuff placed without inflation or occlusion	Intervention and control groups performed low-intensity exercise described as the “usual program for recovery in the hospital with their injured knee kept immobilized by means of knee brace”	Warm-up: NA Working set: 5 sets of occlusions for 5 min, twice a day at 9 am and 2 pm Rest periods: 3 min	2 sessions per day for 11 d, starting at 3 d postop, ending 14 d postop

^a Values are presented as mean ± SD where indicated. ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; bpm, beats per minute; BFR, blood flow restriction; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NA, not available; postop, postoperative; preop, preoperative; reps, repetitions; RM, repetition maximum; ROM, range of motion.

Outcome Measures

Muscle strength was assessed through measurement of maximal volitional isometric contraction torque in 2 studies^23,83 and by muscular torque ratio of the knee flexors to the knee extensors in 1 study.^23,60,83 Additional measures of muscle strength and activation included surface electromyography (EMG) of the vastus medialis, EMG amplitude, time of sustained contraction, and blood flow to the vastus lateralis.⁸³ Muscle size was assessed through measurement of the cross-sectional area and volume of the individual muscles, the extensor groups, and the flexor groups, as well as the femoral muscle group en bloc; anatomic cross-sectional measurements were performed through magnetic resonance imaging.^31,60,73,83 Subjective outcomes assessed included the levels of perceived pain and exertion. Physical function assessments included the single-leg anterior reach distance and tests of anterior instability.^23,60 Two studies performed intergroup and temporal comparisons using factorial analysis of variance to assess for differences between BFR and sham, between pre- and postsurgery, and between operative and healthy legs, with post hoc Tukey test for pairwise comparisons where a significant main effect was determined.^23,83 For the purposes of this review, only significant intergroup (BFR vs sham) differences are reported in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5

Overview of Outcome Measures ^a

Author (Year)	Time Points of Follow-up	Treatment Group	Attrition, %	Outcome Measures
Zargi⁸³ (2018)	Preop, 4 wk postop, 12 wk postop	Control: pre-ACLR sham BFR Treatment: pre-ACLR BFR	0	MVIC torque: T:C, P = .519 Muscle isometric endurance (time of sustained contraction): T > C, P = .014 Surface EMG of vastus medialis: T > C, P = .001 Median frequency calculation of EMG amplitude: T:C, P = .730 Muscle blood flow in vastus lateralis: T > C, P < .001
Hughes²⁵ (2018)	Approximately 23 d after surgery for ACLR groups	Control: NI BFR and post-ACLR standard rehabilitation, heavy resistance Treatment: post-ACLR BFR, light resistance	0	Blood pressure: T:C_NI-BFR; T:C_ACLR-HL, P > .05 RPE: T > C_NI-BFR, P < .01; T:C_ACLR-HL, P > .05 Perceived muscle pain during session: T > C_NI-BFR, P < .05; T > C_ACLR-HL, P < .01 Perceived knee pain during session: T < C_ACLR-HL, P < .05 Perceived knee pain 24 h postexercise: T < C_ACLR-HL, P < .01
Grapar Zargi²² (2016)	Preop, 4 wk postop, 12 wk postop	Control: pre-ACLR sham BFR Treatment: pre-ACLR BFR	0	Vastii volume: T:C, P > .05 Rectus femoris volume: T:C, P = .113 MVIC torque: T:C, P = .556 Single-leg anterior reach distance functional test: T:C, P > .05
Iversen³⁰ (2016)	Preop, 16 d postop	Control: post-ACLR nonrestricted activity Treatment: post-ACLR BFR	0	CSA of quadriceps at 40% femur length: T:C, P > .05 CSA of quadriceps at 50% of femur length: T:C, P > .05 Mean change in anatomic CSA: T:C, P = .6265
Ohta⁵⁹ (2003)	Preop, 16 d postop	Control: post-ACLR nonrestricted activity Treatment: post-ACLR BFR	4.5	Muscular torque ratio of operative knee extensor/contralateral knee extensor: Measured at CC60: T > C, P < .001 Measured at CC180: T > C, P = .004 Measured at IM60: T > C, P < .001 Muscular torque ratio of operative knee flexor/contralateral knee flexor: Measured at CC60: T > C, P < .05 Measured at CC180: T > C, P = .04 Measured at IM60: T > C, P < .02 CSA ratio of operative knee extensor muscle group/contralateral knee extensor muscle group: T > C, P = .04 Single-fiber diameter ratio for type 1 and 2 fibers: T:C, P < .05 Range of motion (extension limit and flexion): T:C, P < .05 Anterior instability: T:C, P < .05
Takarada⁷³ (2000)	Postop days 3 and 14	Control: post-ACLR nonrestricted activity Treatment: post-ACLR BFR	0	Total CSA (cm²) of the quadriceps femoris: T > C, P < .05 Extensor CSA: T > C, P < .05 Flexor CSA: T > C, P < .05 Femur CSA: T:C, P > .05

^a Bold indicates P < .05. ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; BFR, blood flow restriction; C, control; CC, concentric contraction; CSA, cross-sectional area; EMG, electromyography; HL, high load; IM, isometric; MVIC, maximal voluntary isometric contraction; NI, uninjured; postop, postoperative; preop, preoperative; RPE, rating of perceived exertion; T, treatment.

Table 6

Comparison of BFR and Non-BFR Outcomes ^a

Author (Year)	BFR Outcome	Non-BFR Outcome	P Value
Zargi⁸³ (2018)	Preop: MVIC, Nm: 238 ± 83 Muscle isometric endurance, s: 145 ± 47 Surface EMG amplitude: 0.274 ± 0.16 EMG median frequency: 53.2 ± 11 Muscle blood flow: 1.26 ± 0.3 4 wk postop: MVIC, Nm: NA Muscle isometric endurance, s: 153 ± 54 Surface EMG amplitude: 0.391 ± 0.293 EMG median frequency: 45.7 ± 10.1 Muscle blood flow: 1.92 ± 0.81 12 wk postop: MVIC, Nm: 196 ± 48 Muscle isometric endurance, s: 199 ± 71 Surface EMG amplitude: 0.256 ± 0.160 EMG median frequency: 45.9 ± 4.4 Muscle blood flow: 1.49 ± 0.75	Preop: MVIC, Nm: 210 ± 44 Muscle isometric endurance, s: 95 ± 90 Surface EMG amplitude: 0.224 ± 0.1 EMG median frequency: 49.9 ± 5.9 Muscle blood flow: 1.53 ± 0.4 4 wk postop: MVIC, Nm: NA Muscle isometric endurance, s: 95 ± 90 Surface EMG amplitude: 0.187 ± 0.103 EMG median frequency: 41.7 ± 5.8 Muscle blood flow: 0.97 ± 0.20 12 wk postop MVIC, Nm: 181 ± 34 Muscle isometric endurance, s: 187 ± 94 Surface EMG amplitude: 0.210 ± 0.086 EMG median frequency: 44.1 ± 3.7 Muscle blood flow: 1.36 ± 0.32	Time-group interaction: MVIC, Nm: P = .519 Muscle isometric endurance: P = .014 Surface EMG amplitude: P = .001 EMG median frequency: P = .730 Muscle blood flow: P < .001
Hughes²⁵ (2018)	ACLR group with BFR rehabilitation, 22 d postop: Perceived exertion, au: 18 Perceived muscle pain, au: 8 Perceived knee pain, au: 1.5 NI control with BFR rehabilitation, 23 d postop: Perceived exertion, au: 14.5 Perceived muscle pain, au: 5.5 Perceived knee pain, au: NA	ACLR group with non-BFR high-load rehabilitation, 22 d postop: Perceived exertion, au: 15.5 Perceived muscle pain, au: 3 Perceived knee pain, au: 2.5	Between groups analysis at 22 d postop: Perceived exertion, ACLR-BFR vs NI-BFR: P < .01 Perceived exertion, ACLR-BFR vs ACLR-HL: P > .05 Perceived exertion, NI-BFR vs ACLR-HL: P > .05 Perceived muscle pain, ACLR-BFR vs NI-BFR: P < .05 Perceived muscle pain, ACLR-BFR vs ACLR-HL: P < .01 Perceived muscle pain, NI-BFR vs ACLR-HL: P < .05 Perceived knee pain, ACLR-BFR vs NI-BFR: P > .05 Perceived knee pain, ACLR-BFR vs ACLR-HL: P < .01 Perceived knee pain, NI-BFR vs ACLR-HL: P > .05 Time-group interactions Perceived exertion: P < .01 Perceived muscle pain: P < .01 Perceived knee pain: P > .05
Grapar Zargi²² (2016)	Preop: MVIC, Nm: 241 ± 74 Vastii muscle volume, cm³: 1670 ± 362 Rectus femoris muscle volume, cm³: 225.4 ± 53.9 Anterior reach distance, cm: –0.5 4 wk postop: MVIC, Nm: NA Vastii muscle volume, cm³: 1325.9 ± 302.3 Rectus femoris muscle volume, cm³: 215.6 ± 45.4 Anterior reach distance, cm: NA 12 wk postop: MVIC, Nm: 201 ± 47 Vastii muscle volume, cm³: 1444.3 ± 265.6 Rectus femoris muscle volume, cm³: 216.3 ± 56.3 Anterior reach distance, cm: –3.75	Preop: MVIC, Nm: 191 ± 59 Vastii muscle volume, cm³: 1462.7 ± 382 Rectus femoris muscle volume, cm³: 170 ± 43.7 Anterior reach distance, cm: –4.0 4 wk postop: MVIC, Nm: NA Vastii muscle volume, cm³: 1210.3 ± 285.9 Rectus femoris muscle volume, cm³: 164.1 ± 46.6 Anterior reach distance, cm: NA 12 wk postop: MVIC, Nm: 172 ± 47 Vastii muscle volume, cm³: 1334.2 ± 337.2 Rectus femoris muscle volume, cm³: 171.4 ± 45.6 Anterior reach distance, cm: –4.5	Difference between time points: MVIC, Nm: P = .025 Vastii muscle volume, cm³: P = .00 Rectus femoris muscle volume, cm³: P = .00 Anterior reach distance, cm: P > .05 Difference between BFR and non-BFR: MVIC, Nm: P > .05 Vastii muscle volume, cm³: P > .05 Rectus femoris muscle volume, cm³: P > .05 Anterior reach distance, cm: P > .05
Iversen³⁰ (2016)	Preop: CSA quadriceps at 40% femur length, cm²: 77.5 ± 2.5 CSA quadriceps at 50% femur length, cm²: 87.0 ± 3.6 16 d postop: CSA quadriceps at 40% femur length, cm²: 67.7 ± 2.7 CSA quadriceps at 50% femur length, cm²: 73.9 ± 3.5 Reduction in CSA quadriceps at 40% femur length, cm²: –9.7 ± 1.0 Reduction in CSA quadriceps at 50% femur length, cm²: –13.7 ± 0.9 Mean change in CSA quadriceps from baseline to 16 d, cm²: –13.8 ± 1.1	Preop: CSA quadriceps at 40% femur length, cm²: 75.4 ± 3.2 CSA quadriceps at 50% femur length, cm²: 82.8 ± 3.4 16 d postop: CSA quadriceps at 40% femur length, cm²: 66.1 ± 3.3 CSA quadriceps at 50% femur length, cm²: 71.3 ± 3.2 Reduction in CSA quadriceps at 40% femur length, cm²: –9.2 ± 0.8 Reduction in CSA quadriceps at 50% femur length, cm²: –11.5 ± 0.7 Mean change in CSA quadriceps from baseline to 16 d, cm²: –13.1 ± 1	Time point analysis between preop and postop: CSA quadriceps at 40% femur length, cm²: P < .0001 CSA quadriceps at 50% femur length, cm²: P < .0001 Between groups analysis at 16 d postop: Mean change in CSA quadriceps from baseline to 16 d, cm²: P = .6265
Ohta⁵⁹ (2003)	Preop: Extensor torque, CC60 ^b : 84 ± 13 Extensor torque, CC180 ^c : 84 ± 14 Extensor torque, IM60 ^d : 92 ± 19 Flexor torque, CC60 ^b : 96 ± 21 Flexor torque, CC180 ^c : 96 ± 19 Flexor torque, IM60 ^d : 91 ± 18 Extensor CSA, ^e injured:healthy: 91 ± 7 Flexor + adductor CSA, ^e injured:healthy: 99 ± 3 Range of motion, extension (deg): 3.1 ± 5.8 Range of motion, flexion (deg): 144 ± 15 Anterior instability, mm ^f : 5.3 ± 5.3 16 wk postop: Extensor torque, CC60 ^b : 76 ± 16 Extensor torque, CC180 ^c : 77 ± 13 Extensor torque, IM60 ^d : 84 ± 19 Flexor torque, CC60 ^b : 81 ± 14 Flexor torque, CC180 ^c : 84 ± 18 Flexor torque, IM60 ^d : 72 ± 11 Extensor CSA, ^e preop:postop: 101 ± 11 Flexor + adductor CSA, ^e preop:postop: 105 ± 19 Type 1 muscle fiber diameter (μm), preop:postop: 103 ± 10 Type 2 muscle fiber diameter (μm), preop:postop: 102 ± 8 Range of motion, extension (deg): 1.9 ± 3.7 Range of motion, flexion (deg): 140 ± 5.9	Preop: Extensor torque, CC60 ^b : 86 ± 14 Extensor torque, CC180 ^c : 90 ± 9 Extensor torque, IM60 ^d : 94 ± 21 Flexor torque, CC60 ^b : 90 ± 16 Flexor torque, CC180 ^c : 99 ± 16 Flexor torque, IM60 ^d : 94 ± 17 Extensor CSA, ^e injured:healthy: 92 ± 11 Flexor + adductor CSA, ^e injured:healthy: 97 ± 11 Range of motion, extension (deg): 0.7 ± 2.4 Range of motion, flexion (deg): 146 ± 7.7 Anterior instability, mm ^f : 5.3 ± 1.6 16 wk postop: Extensor torque, CC60 ^b : 55 ± 17 Extensor torque, CC180 ^c : 65 ± 13 Extensor torque, IM60 ^d : 63 ± 19 Flexor torque, CC60 ^b : 72 ± 15 Flexor torque, CC180 ^c : 74 ± 12 Flexor torque, IM60 ^d : 62 ± 14 Extensor CSA, ^e preop:postop: 92 ± 12 Flexor + adductor CSA, ^e preop:postop: 102 ± 23 Type 1 muscle fiber diameter (μm), preop:postop: 95 ± 11 Type 2 muscle fiber diameter (μm), preop:postop: 97 ± 7 Range of motion, extension (deg): 3.1 ± 3.6 Range of motion, flexion (deg): 143 ± 8.7	Between group analysis at 16 wk: Extensor torque, CC60 ^b : P < .001 Extensor torque, CC180 ^c : P = .004 Extensor torque, IM60 ^d : P < .001 Flexor torque, CC60 ^b : P = .05 Flexor torque, CC180 ^c : P = .04 Flexor torque, IM60 ^d : P = .02 Extensor CSA, ^e preop:postop: P = .04 Flexor + adductor CSA, ^e preop:postop: P > .05 Type 1 muscle fiber diameter (μm), preop:postop: P > .05 Type 2 muscle fiber diameter (μm), preop:postop: P > .05 Range of motion, extension (deg): P > .05 Range of motion, flexion (deg): P > .05
Takarada⁷³ (2000)	3 d postop: Total CSA of thigh, cm²: 167.5 ± 5.1 Extensor CSA, cm²: 54 ± 3 Flexor CSA, cm²: 46.2 ± 2.6 Femur CSA, cm²: 7 ± 0.3 14 d postop: Total CSA of thigh, cm²: 156.3 ± 6.5 Extensor CSA, cm²: 48.5 ± 2.6 Flexor CSA, cm²: 41.7 ± 2.2 Femur CSA, cm²: 7 ± 0.2	3 d postop: Total CSA of thigh, cm²: 161 ± 4.7 Extensor CSA, cm²: 52.8 ± 3.3 Flexor CSA, cm²: 49.1 ± 4.7 Femur CSA, cm²: 6.4 ± 0.5 14 d postop: Total CSA of thigh, cm²: 137.5 ± 6.4 Extensor CSA, cm²: 42.1 ± 3.4 Flexor CSA, cm²: 44.8 ± 5.4 Femur CSA, cm²: 6.5 ± 0.5	Between-group analysis at 3 d: All P > .05 Between-group analysis at 14 d: Total CSA of thigh, cm²: P < .05 Extensor CSA, cm²: P < .05 Flexor CSA, cm²: P < .05 Femur CSA, cm²: P > .05

^a Values are presented as mean ± SD where indicated. Bold P values indicate P < .05. ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; BFR, blood flow restriction; CC, concentric contraction; CSA, cross-sectional area; EMG, electromyography; HL, high load; IM, isometric; MVIC, maximal voluntary isometric contraction; NA, not available; NI, uninjured; postop, postoperative; preop, preoperative; RPE, rating of perceived exertion.

^b Muscular torque, concentric contraction at 60 deg/s, expressed as operated:healthy ratio.

^c Muscular torque, concentric contraction at 180 deg/s, expressed as operated:healthy ratio.

^d Muscular torque, isometric contraction at 60° of knee flexion, expressed as operated:healthy ratio.

^e CSA expressed as ratio to femur on same image.

^f Anterior instability measured with knee ligament arthrometer KT2000 at 133 N.

Descriptive Outcomes

With respect to BFR as a preoperative intervention, 1 study²³ observed no significant differences in outcome measures, including postoperative changes in vastii or rectus volume. However, a second study by the same group observed that several outcome measures were significantly greater in the BFR group as compared with the sham BFR controls at 12-week follow-up, including muscle isometric endurance (P = .014), surface EMG amplitude of the vastus medialis (P = .001), and muscle blood flow to the vastus lateralis (P < .001).⁸³

With respect to BFR as a postoperative intervention, 2 of 3 studies^59,73 observed significantly less muscle atrophy as measured by cross-sectional area of the knee extensor muscles when compared with controls (P < .05). Postoperative BFR was also associated with significantly greater cross-sectional area of the flexor and total quadriceps muscle group in 1 of 2 studies (all P < .05)⁷³ and with significantly greater strength of the operative limb in the other study (all P < .05), as measured by muscular torque ratio of the injured extensor and flexor to their counterparts in the healthy limb.⁶⁰ One study comparing subjective outcome measures by Hughes et al found that BFR was associated with significantly increased rates of perceived exertion and reduction of muscle pain during session but significantly decreased levels of knee pain during and after session, as compared with non-BFR ACLR rehabilitation (all P < .05)²⁶ (Table 5). One study provided data regarding complications, where 2 patients in the LL-BFR group dropped out because of lower limb “dull pain” related to the tourniquet.⁶⁰

Study Quality and Reporting

The Jadad score was utilized to assess the quality of the trials included, with scores ranging from 2 to 4. All studies included were self-described as randomized and provided appropriate description of the randomization procedure. Four studies^23,26,31,83 were double-blinded, while 3 provided descriptions of appropriate blinding methods.^23,31,83 Only 1 study included a description of participants who dropped out or withdrew from the study.⁶⁰

Discussion

The main findings from this descriptive analysis were as follows: (1) literature surrounding the topic of BFR rehabilitation in patients with ACLR is limited and heterogeneous, and (2) some but not all of the available evidence suggests that BFR as a pre- or postoperative intervention is beneficial to muscle volume and strength/endurance, at least in the early postoperative period, when compared with nonrestricted postoperative activity. These observations are in line with existing literature that has demonstrated increases in muscle hypertrophy with BFR application in healthy^{8,51,52,55,80} and injured/postoperative^22,35,74 populations. Additionally, comparison of acute subjective outcomes between LL-BFR and high-load conventional rehabilitation found increased ratings of perceived exertion and reduced in- and postsession knee pain with LL-BFR. With comparable increases in muscle cross-sectional area between LL-BFR and heavy-load training,^60
-62,73 this new observation highlights the appeal of LL-BFR as a potentially effective alternative that can lead to reduced residual knee pain. Ultimately, definitive assessment of the effects of BFR in this population remains uncertain because of the quality of the present literature.

Of the 3 studies assessing strength as an outcome, the 1 with the longest training duration found a difference in muscular torque ratio between the operative knee extensor and the contralateral extensor in patients who underwent 84 sessions of LL-BFR, as opposed to unrestricted low-load training.⁶⁰ This was likely due to the presence of a dose-dependent relationship between training and strength gain such that more sessions lead to greater differences.⁷¹ Evidence on other populations in the literature supports a difference in strength gains between LL-BFR and low-resistance training alone prescribed between 6 and 8 weeks of rehabilitation.^{10,22,27,32,33} In contrast, evidence on the effect of BFR on post-ACLR muscle atrophy is conflicting. Of the 2 studies reviewed, 1 found almost a 50% reduction in muscle atrophy with BFR,⁷³ while the other found no difference in quadriceps cross-sectional area between the control and intervention groups.³⁰ However, authors of the latter study acknowledged subtherapeutic training intensity as a possible reason for this difference and suggested the incorporation of neuromuscular electrostimulation into future research models to detect the effects of BFR on a more granular level.³⁰

The implementation of BFR has generally been indicated for patients with debilitation undergoing clinical rehabilitation, such as the elderly or surgical candidates^{5,11,34,35,68,75,76} or athletes involved in sports at a competitive level.^{2,21,30,68,78} While these 2 populations may ostensibly have distinct needs, their goals of rehabilitation or training make BFR an optimal intervention. Initial studies applied hemodynamic occlusion to low-resistance strength training in healthy and active athletes. Since then, several randomized trials and systematic reviews have established its effectiveness in improving muscle hypertrophy, strength, and fiber-type distribution, independently and as a complement to conventional training, while minimizing joint stress and risk of adverse effects.^‡

For this reason, low-intensity resistance training with occlusion can be an effective and safe alternative in patients with sufficient extent of frailty or debility.^41,43,76 BFR also has appeal in rehabilitation of active patients after sports-related injuries, for maintenance of muscle mass and function while injuries heal, to facilitate a more rapid return to preinjury competition.^27,35,74

Isolated incidents of adverse events have been documented in the literature, including 3 cases of syncope,⁵³ 1 case of rhabdomyolysis,⁷² 1 case of vision loss secondary to central retinal vein occlusion,⁴ and 1 case of thoracic venous outflow obstruction in a patient with thoracic outlet syndrome.⁵⁹ However, multiple trials and several systematic reviews have supported the safety of BFR rehabilitation with regard to ischemic and hemostatic risks.^§ With the heterogeneity in quality of evidence, firm recommendations have been difficult to produce,^7,48 but a consensus among clinicians has pointed toward individualizing occlusion pressures, which has important implications for safety and effectiveness.^{3,17,27,37,46,48,79}

Currently, it is recommended that individual occlusion pressures be calculated as a percentage of the total arterial occlusion pressure (AOP), with individual protocols ranging from 60% to 80%.^35,40,69,84 The gold standard method of measuring AOP and true occlusion is Doppler ultrasound,^6,9,29,56,66 although recent investigations have begun to assess the feasibility of pulse oximetry as a lower maintenance alternative.^77,84 A previous method in the literature attempted to predict the AOP as a percentage of the brachial systolic blood pressure.⁴⁸ However, a more recent investigation identified thigh circumference as the greatest predictor of AOP.⁴⁴ Therefore, limb circumference is being investigated as a highly effective nonmodifiable factor that can predict pressures applied for complete to partial occlusion.^17,28,44,81 Additionally, considerations for setting initial pressures according to tourniquet material (nylon vs elastic) has been highlighted.⁴⁶ Of note, none of the studies included in this systematic review completely employed these guidelines in their methods.

The current paradigm in training protocol is experiencing a similar transition toward individualized prescriptions to maximize gains. Studies in the literature have observed a domain-specific timeline for LL-BFR to demonstrate a significant advantage over non-BFR low-resistance training. Significant hypertrophy has been noted after as short as 6 days of training²¹ and can be effectively achieved by most protocols: rehabilitation trials for patients undergoing surgery typically last 2 to 6 weeks and as long as 20 weeks.¹⁶ Those for the elderly last longer, averaging 10 to 12 weeks.^{42,54,61,62,65,76} However, there is the observation that improvements in muscle strength require a longer duration of training.⁶³ A comparative study demonstrated that while high-load resistance training (without BFR) yielded greater strength increases initially, results were equivalent to LL-BFR at 12 weeks of training.¹² This implies that an appropriate period of familiarization may yield hormonal and neural adaptations to more effectively utilize occlusion training.⁶⁷

A comparison of pre- and postoperative BFR training in patients undergoing ACLR in this review found the strongest evidence of significant improvements in muscle hypertrophy and strength over standard rehabilitation protocols in candidates for postoperative BFR. Of the 2 studies on preoperative BFR, only 1 found a significant improvement over sham intervention in muscular endurance, activation, and perfusion. These outcomes were likely confounded by the significantly reduced training durations of preoperative BFR (5 sessions over 10 days).^23,83 Additionally, both trials enrolled only patients with chronic ACL rupture, where there is a greater likelihood of functional adaptation after injury. An ongoing trial is examining 4 weeks of BFR prehabilitation as part of an overall perioperative protocol for ACLR, providing further insight to the optimal timing of BFR intervention¹⁶ (Appendix Table A1). The strong evidence for the increased benefit of combined pre- and postoperative BFR rehabilitation after orthopaedic surgery^18,64 makes it imperative to continue evaluating BFR as a prehabilitation intervention.

There are several limitations to consider while interpreting the results of this study. While significant differences in short-term muscle strength and hypertrophy were demonstrated in some of the studies, none provided follow-up data with regard to changes in primary clinical outcomes or return to sports. The heterogeneity in outcome variables precluded a meta-analysis. Torque and cross-sectional areas are common outcome measurements, are readily obtained,^{2,5,8,10,11,73,81
-83} and warrant inclusion in the design of future trials. The study by Hughes et al²⁶ examining immediate subjective perspectives during and after BFR performed only a single session. Their results may not be generalizable to patients who are well-adapted to the volume and intensity of BFR protocols. Overall, there was a small number of patients in the collective cohort of studies reviewed and poor reporting of adverse events. Long-term follow-up data in these studies were sparse, and firm recommendations regarding safety cannot be made.

Conclusion

The evidence for the benefits of BFR rehabilitation after ACLR is sparse and heterogeneous possibly because of the novel nature of the technique. Although several studies have shown potential muscle strength and hypertrophy benefits in patients undergoing perioperative BFR in the setting of ACLR, future investigations with standardized outcomes, long-term follow-up, and more robust sample sizes are required to draw more definitive conclusions.

Footnotes

Notes

Final revision submitted November 11, 2019; accepted November 25, 2019.

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: B.U.N. has received educational support from Smith & Nephew and hospitality payments from Stryker, Wright Medical, and Zimmer Biomet. B.F. has received research support from Arthrex, Smith & Nephew, and Stryker; educational support from Medwest; consulting fees from Sonoma Orthopedics and Stryker; honoraria from Arthrosurface; and royalties from Elsevier and has stock/stock options in Jace Medical. J.C. has received educational support from Arthrex and Smith & Nephew. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

APPENDIX

Table A1

Protocols of Ongoing Level 1 Trials on Perioperative BFR in Patients Undergoing ACLR ^a

Author (Year)	Device Used	Exercises	Volume and Frequency	Duration
Erickson¹⁵ (2019)	Pressurized cuff to the proximal thigh that partially occludes blood flow as the patient exercises	Primary outcome measure: quadriceps strength (peak torque, rate of torque development) Secondary outcome measures: knee extensor movement, knee flexion excursion, knee flexion angle, quadriceps cross-sectional area, quadriceps muscle physiology	Not published in abstract	Presurgical blood flow restriction therapy 3×/wk for 4 wk leading up to surgery Postsurgical blood flow restriction therapy 3×/wk for 4-5 mo
Lambert³⁶ (2019)	Automated tourniquet around the proximal thigh outfitted with Doppler (Delfi)	Weeks 1-3: quadriceps contractions Weeks 3-12: bilateral leg press Weeks 4-6: hamstring curl Weeks 4-12: eccentric leg press Weeks 7-12: eccentric hamstring curl	All exercises preformed at 20% predicted 1 repetition maximum of contralateral leg All exercises, 4 sets of 30-15-15-15 repetitions separated by 30-s rest BFR group performed exercises with cuff at 80% arterial limb occlusion	12 wk of rehabilitation (2 sessions/wk) beginning at 10 d postsurgery Functional assessments performed at weeks 8 and 12 postsurgery DEXA scan performed pre- and postoperatively at weeks 6 and 12

^a Occlusion pressure/cuff width was not published in either abstract. ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; BFR, blood flow restriction; DEXA, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

References

Abe

Kawamoto

Yasuda

Kearns

Midorikawa

Sato

. Eight days KAATSU-resistance training improved sprint but not jump performance in collegiate male track and field athletes. Int J KAATSU Train Res. 2005;1(1):19–23.

Abe

Loenneke

Fahs

Rossow

Thiebaud

Bemben

. Exercise intensity and muscle hypertrophy in blood flow-restricted limbs and non-restricted muscles: a brief review. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2012;32(4):247–252.

Abe

Mouser

Dankel

, et al. A method to standardize the blood flow restriction pressure by an elastic cuff. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019;29(3):329–335.

Abe

Sakamaki

Fujita

, et al. Effects of low-intensity walk training with restricted leg blood flow on muscle strength and aerobic capacity in older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2010;33(1):34–40.

AORN Recommended Practices Committee. Recommended practices for the use of the pneumatic tourniquet in the perioperative practice setting. Aorn J. 2007;86(4):640–655.

Bezerra de Morais

Santos Cerqueira

Moreira Sales

Rocha

Galvão de Moura

Filho A

. Upper limbs total occlusion pressure assessment: Doppler ultrasound reproducibility and determination of predictive variables. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2017;37(4):437–441.

Bond

Hackney

Brown

Noonan

. Blood flow restriction resistance exercise as a rehabilitation modality following orthopaedic surgery: a review of venous thromboembolism risk. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49(1):17–27.

Bowman

Elshaar

Milligan

, et al. Proximal, distal, and contralateral effects of blood flow restriction training on the lower extremities: a randomized controlled trial. Sports Health. 2019;11(2):149–156.

Brown

Binnie

Dawson

Bullock

Scott

Peeling

. Factors affecting occlusion pressure and ischemic preconditioning. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018;18(3):387–396.

10.

Bryk

Dos Reis

Fingerhut

, et al. Exercises with partial vascular occlusion in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(5):1580–1586.

11.

Centner

Wiegel

Gollhofer

König

. Effects of blood flow restriction training on muscular strength and hypertrophy in older individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2019;49(1):95–108.

12.

Cook

LaRoche

Villa

Barile

Manini

. Blood flow restricted resistance training in older adults at risk of mobility limitations. Exp Gerontol. 2017;99:138–145.

13.

Cugno

Uziel

Fabrizi

Bottasso

Maggiolini

Agostoni

. Fibrinolytic response in normal subjects to venous occlusion and DDAVP infusion. Thromb Res. 1989;56(5):625–634.

14.

Dankel

Jessee

Abe

Loenneke

. The effects of blood flow restriction on upper-body musculature located distal and proximal to applied pressure. Sports Med. 2016;46(1):23–33.

15.

El-Sayed

El-Sayed Ali

Ahmadizad

. Exercise and training effects on blood haemostasis in health and disease: an update. Sports Med. 2004;34(3):181–200.

16.

Erickson

Lucas

KCH

Davis

, et al. Effect of blood flow restriction training on quadriceps muscle strength, morphology, physiology, and knee biomechanics before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: protocol for a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2019;99(8):1010–1019.

17.

Fahs

Loenneke

Rossow

Tiebaud

Bemben

. Methodological considerations for blood flow restricted resistance exercise. J Trainol. 2012;1(1):14–22.

18.

Failla

Logerstedt

Grindem

, et al. Does extended preoperative rehabilitation influence outcomes 2 years after ACL reconstruction? A comparative effectiveness study between the MOON and Delaware-Oslo ACL cohorts. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(10):2608–2614.

19.

Ferguson

Hunt

JEA

Lewis

, et al. The acute angiogenic signalling response to low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018;18(3):397–406.

20.

Fortin

Billaut

. Blood-flow restricted warm-up alters muscle hemodynamics and oxygenation during repeated sprints in American football players. Sports (Basel). 2019;7(5):121.

21.

Fujita

Brechue

Kurita

Sato

Abe

. Increased muscle volume and strength following six days of low-intensity resistance training with restricted muscle blood flow. Int J KAATSU Train Res. 2008;4(1):1–8.

22.

Giles

Webster

McClelland

Cook

. Quadriceps strengthening with and without blood flow restriction in the treatment of patellofemoral pain: a double-blind randomised trial. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(23):1688–1694.

23.

Grapar Zargi

Drobnic

Jkoder

Strazar

Kacin

. The effects of preconditioning with ischemic exercise on quadriceps femoris muscle atrophy following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a quasi-randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;52(3):310–320.

24.

Grindem

Granan

Risberg

Engebretsen

Snyder-Mackler

Eitzen

. How does a combined preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation programme influence the outcome of ACL reconstruction 2 years after surgery? A comparison between patients in the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort and the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(6):385–389.

25.

Higgins

JPT

Altman

Gøtzsche

, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:D5928.

26.

Hughes

Paton

Haddad

Rosenblatt

Gissane

Patterson

. Comparison of the acute perceptual and blood pressure response to heavy load and light load blood flow restriction resistance exercise in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patients and non-injured populations. Phys Ther Sport. 2018;33:54–61.

27.

Hughes

Paton

Rosenblatt

Gissane

Patterson

. Blood flow restriction training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(13):1003–1011.

28.

Hunt

JEA

Stodart

Ferguson

. The influence of participant characteristics on the relationship between cuff pressure and level of blood flow restriction. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016;116(7):1421–1432.

29.

Ingram

Dankel

Buckner

, et al. The influence of time on determining blood flow restriction pressure. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20(8):777–780.

30.

Ishii

Madarame

Odagiri

Naganuma

Shinoda

. Circuit training without external load induces hypertrophy in lower-limb muscles when combined with moderate venous occlusion. Int J KAATSU Train Res. 2005;1(1):24–28.

31.

Iversen

Rostad

Larmo

. Intermittent blood flow restriction does not reduce atrophy following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Sport Health Sci. 2016;5(1):115–118.

32.

Jadad

Moore

Carroll

, et al.

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12.

33.

Karabulut

Bemben

Sherk

Anderson

Abe

Bemben

. Effects of high-intensity resistance training and low-intensity resistance training with vascular restriction on bone markers in older men. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(8):1659–1667.

34.

Ladlow

Coppack

Dharm-Datta

, et al. The effects of low-intensity blood flow restricted exercise compared with conventional resistance training on the clinical outcomes of active UK military personnel following a 3-week in-patient rehabilitation programme: protocol for a randomized controlled feasibility study. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2017;3:71–87.

35.

Ladlow

Coppack

Dharm-Datta

, et al. Low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction improves clinical outcomes in musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1269.

36.

Lambert

Hedt

Jack

, et al. Blood flow restriction therapy preserves whole limb bone and muscle following ACL reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(3)(suppl 2):2325967119S2325900196.

37.

Larkin

Macneil

Dirain

Sandesara

Manini

Buford

. Blood flow restriction enhances post-resistance exercise angiogenic gene expression. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(11):2077–2083.

38.

Laswati

Sugiarto

Poerwandari

Pangkahila

Kimura

. Low-intensity exercise with blood flow restriction increases muscle strength without altering hsCRP and fibrinogen levels in healthy subjects. Chin J Physiol. 2018;61(3):188–195.

39.

Laurentino

Ugrinowitsch

Roschel

, et al. Strength training with blood flow restriction diminishes myostatin gene expression. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(3):406–412.

40.

Lejkowski

Pajaczkowski

. Utilization of vascular restriction training in post-surgical knee rehabilitation: a case report and introduction to an under-reported training technique. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2011;55(4):280–287.

41.

Libardi

Chacon-Mikahil

MPT

Cavaglieri

, et al. Effect of concurrent training with blood flow restriction in the elderly. Int J Sports Med. 2015;36(5):395–399.

42.

Lipker

Persinger

Michalko

Durall

. Blood flow restriction therapy versus standard care for reducing quadriceps atrophy after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Sport Rehabil. 2019;28(8):897–901.

43.

Lixandrao

Ugrinowitsch

Berton

, et al. Magnitude of muscle strength and mass adaptations between high-load resistance training versus low-load resistance training associated with blood-flow restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018;48(2):361–378.

44.

Loenneke

Fahs

Rossow

, et al. Blood flow restriction pressure recommendations: a tale of two cuffs. Front Physiol. 2013;4:249.

45.

Loenneke

Fahs

Rossow

, et al. Effects of cuff width on arterial occlusion: implications for blood flow restricted exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(8):2903–2912.

46.

Loenneke

Thiebaud

Abe

Bemben

. Blood flow restriction pressure recommendations: the hormesis hypothesis. Med Hypotheses. 2014;82(5):623–626.

47.

Loenneke

Wilson

Pujol

Bemben

. Potential safety issues with blood flow restriction training. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(4):510–518.

48.

Lowery

Joy

Loenneke

, et al. Practical blood flow restriction training increases muscle hypertrophy during a periodized resistance training programme. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2014;34(4):317–321.

49.

Luebbers

Fry

Kriley

Butler

. The effects of a 7-week practical blood flow restriction program on well-trained collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(8):2270–2280.

50.

Manimmanakorn

Hamlin

Ross

Taylor

Manimmanakorn

. Effects of low-load resistance training combined with blood flow restriction or hypoxia on muscle function and performance in netball athletes. J Sci Med Sport. 2013;16(4):337–342.

51.

Manimmanakorn

Taylor

, et al. Effects of resistance training combined with vascular occlusion or hypoxia on neuromuscular function in athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013;113(7):1767–1774.

52.

Martin-Hernandez

Santos-Lozano

Foster

Lucia

. Syncope episodes and blood flow restriction training. Clin J Sport Med. 2018;28(6):e89–e91.

53.

Mattar

Gualano

Perandini

, et al. Safety and possible effects of low-intensity resistance training associated with partial blood flow restriction in polymyositis and dermatomyositis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16(5):473.

54.

Montgomery

Paterson

Williamson

Florida-James

Ross

. Blood flow restriction exercise attenuates the exercise-induced endothelial progenitor cell response in healthy, young men. Front Physiol. 2019;10:447.

55.

Mouser

Ade

Black

Bemben

. Brachial blood flow under relative levels of blood flow restriction is decreased in a nonlinear fashion. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2018;38(3):425–430.

56.

Nakajima

Kurano

Iida

, et al. Use and safety of KAATSU training: results of a national survey. Int J KAATSU Train Res. 2006;2(1):5–13.

57.

Nascimento

DDC

Petriz

Oliveira

SDC

, et al. Effects of blood flow restriction exercise on hemostasis: a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized trials. Int J Gen Med. 2019;12:91–100.

58.

Noto

Hashimoto

Takagi

, et al. Paget-Schroetter syndrome resulting from thoracic outlet syndrome and KAATSU training. Intern Med. 2017;56(19):2595–2601.

59.

Ohta

Kurosawa

Ikeda

Iwase

Satou

Nakamura

. Low-load resistance muscular training with moderate restriction of blood flow after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(1):62–68.

60.

Ozaki

Miyachi

Nakajima

Abe

. Effects of 10 weeks walk training with leg blood flow reduction on carotid arterial compliance and muscle size in the elderly adults. Angiology. 2010;62(1):81–86.

61.

Ozaki

Sakamaki

Yasuda

, et al. Increases in thigh muscle volume and strength by walk training with leg blood flow reduction in older participants. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66(3):257–263.

62.

Ozawa

Koto

Shinoda

Tsubota

. Vision loss by central retinal vein occlusion after KAATSU training: a case report. Medicine. 2015;94(36):e1515.

63.

Segal

Davis

Mikesky

. Efficacy of blood flow-restricted low-load resistance training for quadriceps strengthening in men at risk of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2015;6(3):160–167.

64.

Shaarani

O’Hare

Quinn

Moyna

Moran

O’Byrne

. Effect of prehabilitation on the outcome of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(9):2117–2127.

65.

Shimizu

Hotta

Yamamoto

, et al. Low-intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction improves vascular endothelial function and peripheral blood circulation in healthy elderly people. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016;116(4):749–757.

66.

Sieljacks

Knudsen

Wernbom

Vissing

. Body position influences arterial occlusion pressure: implications for the standardization of pressure during blood flow restricted exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2018;118(2):303–312.

67.

Silva

Oliveira

Fleck

Leon

Farinatti

. Influence of strength training variables on strength gains in adults over 55 years-old: a meta-analysis of dose-response relationships. J Sci Med Sport. 2014;17(3):337–344.

68.

Slysz

Stultz

Burr

. The efficacy of blood flow restricted exercise: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2016;19(8):669–675.

69.

Soligon

Lixandrao

Biazon

Angleri

Roschel

Libardi

. Lower occlusion pressure during resistance exercise with blood-flow restriction promotes lower pain and perception of exercise compared to higher occlusion pressure when the total training volume is equalized. Physiol Int. 2018;105(3):276–284.

70.

Staunton

May

Brandner

Warmington

. Haemodynamics of aerobic and resistance blood flow restriction exercise in young and older adults. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2015;115(11):2293–2302.

71.

Steib

Schoene

Pfeifer

. Dose-response relationship of resistance training in older adults: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(5):902–914.

72.

Tabata

Suzuki

Azuma

Matsumoto

. Rhabdomyolysis after performing blood flow restriction training: a case report. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(7):2064–2068.

73.

Takarada

Takazawa

Ishii

. Applications of vascular occlusion diminish disuse atrophy of knee extensor muscles. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(12):2035–2039.

74.

Tennent

Hylden

Johnson

Burns

Wilken

Owens

. Blood flow restriction training after knee arthroscopy: a randomized controlled pilot study. Clin J Sport Med. 2017;27(3):245–252.

75.

Thiebaud

Loenneke

Fahs

, et al. The effects of elastic band resistance training combined with blood flow restriction on strength, total bone-free lean body mass and muscle thickness in postmenopausal women. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2013;33(5):344–352.

76.

Vechin

Libardi

Conceicao

, et al. Comparisons between low-intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction and high-intensity resistance training on quadriceps muscle mass and strength in elderly. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(4):1071–1076.

77.

Wall

Buising

Grulke

, et al. Effectiveness of pulse oximetry versus doppler for tourniquet monitoring. J Spec Oper Med. 2017;17(1):36–44.

78.

Weatherholt

Beekley

Greer

Urtel

Mikesky

. Modified KAATSU training: adaptations and subject perceptions. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(5):952–961.

79.

Weatherholt

Vanwye

Lohmann

Owens

. The effect of cuff width for determining limb occlusion pressure: a comparison of blood flow restriction devices. Int J Exerc Sci. 2019;12(3):136–143.

80.

Wilk

Krzysztofik

Gepfert

Poprzecki

Gołaś

Maszczyk

. Technical and training related aspects of resistance training using blood flow restriction in competitive sport—a review. J Hum Kinet. 2018;65:249–260.

81.

Yasuda

Loenneke

Thiebaud

Abe

. Effects of blood flow restricted low-intensity concentric or eccentric training on muscle size and strength. PloS One. 2012;7(12):e52843.

82.

Yokokawa

Hongo

Urayama

Nishimura

Kai

. Effects of low-intensity resistance exercise with vascular occlusion on physical function in healthy elderly people. Biosci Trends. 2008;2(3):117–123.

83.

Zargi

Drobnic

Strazar

Kacin

. Short-term preconditioning with blood flow restricted exercise preserves quadriceps muscle endurance in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1150.

84.

Zeng

Centner

Gollhofer

Konig

. Blood flow restriction training—validity of pulse oximetry to assess arterial occlusion pressure. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(10):1408–1414.

Perioperative Blood Flow Restriction Rehabilitation in Patients Undergoing ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background:

Purpose:

Study Design:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Methods

Search Strategy

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Study Quality and Reporting

Statistical Analysis

Results

Study Populations

BFR Protocol

Outcome Measures

Descriptive Outcomes

Study Quality and Reporting

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Notes

APPENDIX

References