No abstract

Muscle weakness and atrophy are common impairments following musculoskeletal injury. The use of blood flow restriction (BFR) training offers the ability to mitigate weakness and atrophy without overloading healing tissues. This approach requires consideration of a wide range of parameters and the purpose of this manuscript is to provide insights into proposed mechanisms of effectiveness, safety considerations, application guidelines, and clinical guidelines for BFR training following musculoskeletal injury. BFR training appears to be a safe and effective approach to therapeutic exercise in sports medicine environments. While training with higher loads produces the most substantial increases in strength and hypertrophy, BFR training appears to be a reasonable option to bridge between earlier phases of rehabilitation when higher loads may not be tolerated by the patient and later stages that are consistent with return to sport performance.

Context: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) has been shown to improve muscular strength and size better than NMES alone. However, previous studies used varied methodologies not recommended by previous NMES or BFR research. Objective: The present study investigated the acute effects of NMES combined with varying degrees of BFR using research-recommended procedures to enhance understanding and the clinical applicability of this combination. Design: Randomized crossover. Setting: Physiology laboratory. Participants: A total of 20 healthy adults (age 27 [4] y; height 177 [8] cm; body mass 77 [13] kg). Interventions: Six sessions separated by at least 7 days. The first 2 visits served as familiarization, with the experimental conditions performed in the final 4 sessions: NMES alone, NMES 40% BFR, NMES 60% BFR, and NMES 80% BFR. Main Outcome Measures: Maximal voluntary isometric contraction, muscle thickness, blood pressure, heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and pain were all recorded before and after each condition. Results: The NMES 80% BFR caused greater maximal voluntary isometric contraction decline than any other condition (−38.9 [22.3] N·m, P < .01). Vastus medialis and vastus lateralis muscle thickness acutely increased after all experimental conditions (P < .05). Pain and ratings of perceived exertion were higher after NMES 80% BFR compared with all other experimental conditions (P < .05). No cardiovascular effects were observed between conditions. Conclusion: The NMES combined with 80% BFR caused greater acute force decrement than the other conditions. However, greater perceptual ratings of pain and ratings of perceived exertion were observed with NMES 80% BFR. These acute observations must be investigated during chronic interventions to corroborate any relationship to changes in muscle strength and size in clinical populations.

Practical blood flow restriction training (PBFRT) is a novel method of resistance exercise that has been proposed to increase muscular strength and hypertrophy at lower intensities than is currently recommended in guidelines for resistance training. This study aimed to investigate whether practical, inexpensive elastic wraps for PBFRT during a 6-week bodyweight resistance training programme increases lower limb muscular strength, hypertrophy and function. Methods: This study was designed as a parallel, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Young men and women were randomised to either the PBFRT (n=7; 2 males and 5 females) or control (n=5; 2 males and 3 females) group. The intervention was a single leg squat (SLS) bodyweight resistance exercise to fatigue, twice a week for 6 weeks. The PBFRT group performed the SLS exercise with an elastic wrap around their proximal thigh at a perceived tightness of 7/10, and the control group at a perceived tightness of 0/10. The following outcomes were then measured: knee extensor concentric, eccentric and isometric strength (dynamometer), thigh girth and single leg vertical jump height. Results: There were no significant differences between groups (PBFRT and control) for all outcome measures assessed from baseline to post-intervention testing. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the use of PBFRT in conjunction with an SLS bodyweight resistance exercise was not effective at increasing lower limb muscular strength, hypertrophy and function.

Hamstring injuries (HSIs) are the most common athletic injury in running and pivoting sports, but despite large amounts of research, injury rates have not declined in the last 2 decades. HSI often recur and many areas are lacking evidence and guidance for optimal rehabilitation. This study aimed to develop an international expert consensus for the management of HSI. A modified Delphi methodology and consensus process was used with an international expert panel, involving two rounds of online questionnaires and an intermediate round involving a consensus meeting. The initial information gathering round questionnaire was sent to 46 international experts, which comprised open-ended questions covering decision-making domains in HSI. Thematic analysis of responses outlined key domains, which were evaluated by a smaller international subgroup (n=15), comprising clinical academic sports medicine physicians, physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons in a consensus meeting. After group discussion around each domain, a series of consensus statements were prepared, debated and refined. A round 2 questionnaire was sent to 112 international hamstring experts to vote on these statements and determine level of agreement. Consensus threshold was set a priori at 70%. Expert response rates were 35/46 (76%) (first round), 15/35 (attendees/invitees to meeting day) and 99/112 (88.2%) for final survey round. Statements on rehabilitation reaching consensus centred around: exercise selection and dosage (78.8%–96.3% agreement), impact of the kinetic chain (95%), criteria to progress exercise (73%–92.7%), running and sprinting (83%–100%) in rehabilitation and criteria for return to sport (RTS) (78.3%–98.3%). Benchmarks for flexibility (40%) and strength (66.1%) and adjuncts to rehabilitation (68.9%) did not reach agreement. This consensus panel recommends individualised rehabilitation based on the athlete, sporting demands, involved muscle(s) and injury type and severity (89.8%). Early-stage rehab should avoid high strain loads and rates. Loading is important but with less consensus on optimum progression and dosage. This panel recommends rehabilitation progress based on capacity and symptoms, with pain thresholds dependent on activity, except pain-free criteria supported for sprinting (85.5%). Experts focus on the demands and capacity required for match play when deciding the rehabilitation end goal and timing of RTS (89.8%). The expert panellists in this study followed evidence on aspects of rehabilitation after HSI, suggesting rehabilitation prescription should be individualised, but clarified areas where evidence was lacking. Additional research is required to determine the optimal load dose, timing and criteria for HSI rehabilitation and the monitoring and testing metrics to determine safe rapid progression in rehabilitation and safe RTS. Further research would benefit optimising: prescription of running and sprinting, the application of adjuncts in rehabilitation and treatment of kinetic chain HSI factors.