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

Randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study of multimodal agility-based exercise training (MAT) versus strength and endurance training (SET) to improve multiple sclerosis-related fatigue and fatigability during inpatient rehabilitation (ReFEx): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Subjective fatigue and objectively assessed fatigability are common symptoms in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Recent work has suggested a positive effect of balance and motor control training (BMCT) in reducing fatigue. It is unclear whether this effect can also be attained during inpatient rehabilitation. Multimodal agility-based exercise training (MAT) has been developed as a framework that incorporates BMCT with added agility components but has not been applied to pwMS. Therefore, this study will evaluate the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial comparing MAT against strength and endurance training (SET) for the improvement of MS-related fatigue and fatigability in a German neurological rehabilitation centre.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A total of 24 pwMS (Expanded Disability Status Scale ≤5.0, Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions ≥53) will be randomly assigned to either SET or land and water-based MAT for 4-6 weeks during inpatient rehabilitation. Assessments of subjective fatigue, motor and cognitive fatigability, cognitive and cardiorespiratory performance, and balance confidence will be performed at admission and discharge. Subjective fatigue will also be assessed at 1, 4 and 12 weeks after discharge. Feasibility outcomes will include patients' acceptance of study procedures and interventions, recruitment rate, retention rate, time needed to complete baseline assessments, intervention adherence and fidelity. All quantitative outcomes will be reported descriptively. A total of 12 pwMS (6 per group) will be interviewed to gain insights into participants' experiences during study participation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of Bonn (reference number: 543/20). Dissemination of findings is planned via peer-reviewed journals, conferences and media releases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00023943.

Comparison of blood flow restriction devices and their effect on quadriceps muscle activation

OBJECTIVES

Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) provides an alternative approach to traditional strength training. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in quadriceps muscle activation, subject reported pain, and perceived exertion between three exercise conditions: low-load resistance BFRT with (1) regulated and (2) standardized devices, and (3) high-load resistance exercise without BFRT.

DESIGN

Randomized cross over study.

SETTING

XX University Biomechanics laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-four healthy subjects (18 male/16 female) each completed three randomized sessions of knee extensions using Delfi's Personalized Tourniquet System (R) at 30% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), the B-Strong™ device (S) at 30% 1RM, and high-load resistance exercise (HL) at 80% 1RM.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Quadriceps EMG activity, numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and perceived exertion (OMNI-RES) were recorded.

RESULTS

Average and peak EMG were greater in HL sessions than both S and R (p < .001). NPRS was greater in the R sessions compared to both S (p < .001) and HL (p < .001). OMNI-RES was greater in the R sessions compared to S (p < .02) and HL (p < .001). No differences (p > .05) in average or peak EMG activation were found between S and R sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

Quadriceps EMG amplitude was greater during high-load resistance exercise versus low-load BFR exercise and there were no differences in EMG findings between BFRT devices.

Developing UK Defence Rehabilitation research priorities: a 2020 clinical practitioner engagement exercise

INTRODUCTION

Establishing research priorities help to address knowledge gaps and exploit emerging opportunities to develop a clinical evidence base. The previous clinical engagement exercise to determine UK Defence Rehabilitation practitioner-based research priorities was conducted in 2014. The aim of this article is to (1) describe how research priorities are established for UK Defence Rehabilitation; (2) review, reassess and rate the priorities highlighted and set by rehabilitation practitioners following the 2014 survey and (3) identify new rehabilitation research themes and topics reflecting 2020 priorities.

METHODS

Stage 1: delegates (n=72) at the October 2019 Defence Medical Services Rehabilitation Conference participated in a series of focus group workshops. Stage 2: an online survey circulated through the military chain of command to all Defence Primary Health Care clinical rehabilitation staff. Stage 3: a thematic analysis of all survey submissions yielding a ranked order of priority by topic.

RESULTS

165 clinical rehabilitation staff completed an online survey. 'Rehabilitation outcomes', 'Psychological factors in rehabilitation' and 'Residential/Inpatient treatment paradigm' emerged as three clear research priorities across all three tiers of UK Defence Rehabilitation. New research priorities emerging from the 2020 survey were 'lifestyle factors during rehabilitation', 'management of pain during rehabilitation' and 'anterior knee pain'.

CONCLUSION

It is essential that funding directed to musculoskeletal rehabilitation focuses on the highest research priorities in the field to ensure optimum health return on investment. The results of this survey will assist in guiding the clinical research being conducted within UK Defence Rehabilitation over the next five years.

Integration of strength training into UK Defence Rehabilitation practice: current trends and future challenges

The use of strength and conditioning (S&C) in musculoskeletal rehabilitation has gained wide acceptance among the rehabilitation community. However, there is an absence of evidence demonstrating how to best integrate the principles of S&C into rehabilitation practice. This article discusses four broad themes: (1) an overview of the UK Defence Rehabilitation care pathway, (2) the historical and current approaches to physical training to support operational readiness of the British Armed Forces, (3) the current and future challenges of integrating S&C into Defence Rehabilitation practice and (4) research priorities relating to the use of S&C in Defence Rehabilitation. We detail the importance of strength/power-based physical attributes within our military population. We recommend that consideration be given to the benefits of an alternative education/coaching-based model to be used during the current 3-week residential care pathway, which aims to ensure effective implementation of therapeutic S&C over a longer period of care.

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

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.

Low-Load Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction Improves Clinical Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: There is growing evidence to support the use of low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) exercise in musculoskeletal rehabilitation.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of low-load blood flow restricted (LL-BFR) training versus conventional high mechanical load resistance training (RT) on the clinical outcomes of patient’s undergoing inpatient multidisciplinary team (MDT) rehabilitation.

Study design: A single-blind randomized controlled study.

Methods: Twenty-eight lower-limb injured adults completed a 3-week intensive MDT rehabilitation program. Participants were randomly allocated into a conventional RT (3-days/week) or twice-daily LL-BFR training group. Outcome measurements were taken at baseline and 3-weeks and included quadriceps and total thigh muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and volume, muscle strength [five repetition maximum (RM) leg press and knee extension test, isometric hip extension], pain and physical function measures (Y-balance test, multistage locomotion test—MSLT).

Results: A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences between groups for any outcome measure post-intervention (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvements in mean scores for muscle CSA/volume, 5-RM leg press, and 5-RM knee extension (p < 0.01) after treatment. LL-BFR group participants also demonstrated significant improvements in MSLT and Y-balance scores (p < 0.01). The Pain scores during training reduced significantly over time in the LL-BFR group (p = 0.024), with no adverse events reported during the study.

Conclusion: Comparable improvements in muscle strength and hypertrophy were shown in LL-BFR and conventional training groups following in-patient rehabilitation. The LL-BFR group also achieved significant improvements in functional capacity. LL-BFR training is a rehabilitation tool that has the potential to induce positive adaptations in the absence of high mechanical loads and therefore could be considered a treatment option for patients suffering significant functional deficits for whom conventional loaded RT is contraindicated.

Trial Registration: ISRCTN Reference: ISRCTN63585315, dated 25 April 2017.