MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415357510 · doi:10.3390/medicina61101879

Blood Flow Restriction Training in Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence on Postoperative Muscle Strength and Function

2025· review· en· W4415357510 on OpenAlexaff
Bassem Tiss, Saoussen Layouni, Héla Ghali, Halil İbrahim Ceylan, Iheb Nticha, Sonia Jemni, Raul Ioan Muntean, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi, Ismail Dergaa

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood flow restrictionPrehabilitationRehabilitationStrength trainingMuscle strengthArthroplastyRandomized controlled trialFunctional trainingCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicinaSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207