Background and objectiveLow-load exercise training with blood flow restriction (BFR) can increase muscle strength and may offer an effective clinical musculoskeletal (MSK) rehabilitation tool. The aim of this review was to systematically analyse the evidence regarding the effectiveness of this novel training modality in clinical MSK rehabilitation.DesignThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature examining BFR training in clinical MSK rehabilitation (Research Registry; researchregistry91).Data sourcesA literature search was conducted across SPORTDiscus (EBSCO), PubMed and Science Direct databases, including the reference lists of relevant papers. Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and MSK and functional outcome measures. Study quality and reporting was assessed using the Tool for the assEssment of Study qualiTy and reporting in EXercise.EligibilitySearch results were limited to exercise training studies investigating BFR training in clinical MSK rehabilitation, published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal in English.ResultsTwenty studies were eligible, including ACL reconstruction (n=3), knee osteoarthritis (n=3), older adults at risk of sarcopenia (n=13) and patients with sporadic inclusion body myositis (n=1). Analysis of pooled data indicated low-load BFR training had a moderate effect on increasing strength (Hedges’ g=0.523, 95% CI 0.263 to 0.784, p<0.001), but was less effective than heavy-load training (Hedges’ g=0.674, 95% CI 0.296 to 1.052, p<0.001).ConclusionCompared with low-load training, low-load BFR training is more effective, tolerable and therefore a potential clinical rehabilitation tool. There is a need for the development of an individualised approach to training prescription to minimise patient risk and increase effectiveness.

BackgroundTotal arterial occlusive pressure (AOP) is used to prescribe pressures for surgery, blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) and ischemic preconditioning (IPC). AOP is often measured in a supine position; however, the influence of body position on AOP measurement is unknown and may influence level of occlusion in different positions during BFR and IPC. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the influence of body position on AOP.MethodsFifty healthy individuals (age = 29 ± 6 y) underwent AOP measurements on the dominant lower-limb in supine, seated and standing positions in a randomised order. AOP was measured automatically using the Delfi Personalised Tourniquet System device, with each measurement separated by 5 min of rest.ResultsArterial occlusive pressure was significantly lower in the supine position compared to the seated position (187.00 ± 32.5 vs 204.00 ± 28.5 mmHg, p < 0.001) and standing position (187.00 ± 32.5 vs 241.50 ± 49.3 mmHg, p < 0.001). AOP was significantly higher in the standing position compared to the seated position (241.50 ± 49.3 vs 204.00 ± 28.5 mmHg, p < 0.001).DiscussionArterial occlusive pressure measurement is body position dependent, thus for accurate prescription of occlusion pressure during surgery, BFR and IPC, AOP should be measured in the position intended for subsequent application of occlusion.

This study examined the cuff to limb interface pressure during blood flow restriction (BFR), and the perceptual and mean arterial pressure responses, in different BFR systems. Eighteen participants attended three experimental sessions in a randomised, crossover, counterbalanced design. Participants underwent inflations at 40% and 80% limb occlusive pressure (LOP) at rest and completed 4 sets of unilateral leg press exercise at 30% of one repetition maximum with BFR at 80% LOP. Different BFR systems were used each session: an automatic rapid-inflation (RI), automatic personalized tourniquet (PT) and manual handheld pump and sphygmomanometer (HS) system. Interface pressure was measured using a universal interface device with pressure sensors. Perceived exertion and pain were measured after each set, mean arterial pressure (MAP) was measured pre-, 1-minute post- and 5-minutes post-exercise. Interface pressure was lower than the set pressure in all BFR systems at rest (P < .05). Interface pressure was, on average, 10 ± 8 and 48 ± 36 mm Hg higher than the set pressure in the RI and HS system (P < .01), with no differences observed in the PT system (P > .05), during exercise. Pain and exertion were greater in sets 3 and 4 in the RI and HS system compared to the PT system (P < .05). MAP was higher in the RI and HS system compared to the PT system at 1-minute and 5-minutes post-exercise (P < .05). BFR systems applying higher pressures amplify mean arterial pressure and perceptual responses. Automatic BFR systems appear to regulate pressure effectively within an acceptable range during BFR exercise.