Blood Flow Restriction Training in Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence on Postoperative Muscle Strength and Function
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and Objectives: Knee arthroplasty often leads to marked postoperative muscle weakness, with strength losses of up to 62% in the first month, contributing to functional impairment and patient dissatisfaction. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training, which combines low-load exercise with partial vascular occlusion, has shown promise in enhancing muscle strength across musculoskeletal conditions and may represent a valuable rehabilitation strategy for this vulnerable population. This review aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of BFR training in improving muscle strength and functional outcomes following knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was prospectively registered within PROSPERO (CRD420250652404) and conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched through February 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating BFR training in knee arthroplasty patients. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (RoB 2 tool) were performed independently by two reviewers. Eligible trials reported muscle strength and/or functional outcomes as primary or secondary endpoints. Results: Four RCTs, including 148 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (mean age: 67 ± 6.5 years), met the inclusion criteria. All applied preoperative BFR training for 4–8 weeks with heterogeneous protocols. Two trials demonstrated significant improvements in muscle strength (1 RM leg press, 1 RM knee extension; large effect sizes) and functional outcomes (6 min walk test, 30 s sit-to-stand; earlier recovery), favoring BFR. The remaining studies showed no significant between-group differences, though moderate-to-large effect sizes generally favored BFR training. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Prehabilitation with BFR training shows considerable potential to enhance early postoperative muscle strength and functional recovery in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty, particularly when compared with usual care lacking structured preoperative intervention. The evidence to date suggests that BFR is a safe and well-tolerated strategy, offering an alternative for patients who cannot perform high-load resistance training. Its favorable safety profile, combined with the potential to accelerate functional recovery, highlights the promise of BFR for reducing rehabilitation costs and healthcare utilization. Nonetheless, larger, high-quality RCTs with standardized protocols and extended follow-up are required to confirm these preliminary findings and establish clear clinical guidelines for their implementation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».