TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of the acute perceptual and blood pressure response to heavy load and light load blood flow restriction resistance exercise in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patients and non-injured populations
AU - Hughes, Luke
AU - Paton, Bruce
AU - Haddad, Fares
AU - Rosenblatt, Benjamin
AU - Gissane, Conor
AU - Patterson, Stephen David
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018
PY - 2018/9
Y1 - 2018/9
N2 - Objectives: To compare the acute perceptual and blood pressure responses to: 1) light load blood flow restriction resistance exercise (BFR-RE) in non-injured individuals and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) patients; and 2) light load BFR-RE and heavy load RE (HL-RE) in ACLR patients. Design: Between-subjects, partially-randomised. Methods: This study comprised 3 groups: non-injured BFR-RE (NI-BFR); ACLR patients BFR-RE (ACLR-BFR); ACLR patients HL-RE (ACLR-HL). NI-BFR and ACLR-BFR performed 4 sets (30, 15, 15, 15 reps, total = 75 reps, 30s inter-set rest) of unilateral leg press exercise at 30% 1RM with continuous BFR at 80% limb occlusive pressure. ACLR-HL performed 3 × 10 reps (Total = 30 reps, 30s inter-set rest) of unilateral leg press exercise at 70% 1RM. Perceived exertion (RPE), muscle pain, knee pain and pre- and 5-min post-exercise blood pressure were measured. Results: RPE was higher in ACLR-BFR compared to NI-BFR (p < 0.05). Muscle pain was higher in NI-BFR and ACLR-BFR compared to ACLR-HL (p < 0.05). Knee pain was lower in ACLR-BFR compared to ACLR-HL (p < 0.01). There were no differences in blood pressure. Conclusion: These responses to BFR exercise may not limit application and favourably influence knee pain throughout ACLR rehabilitation training programmes. These findings can help inform practitioners' decisions to utilise this tool.
AB - Objectives: To compare the acute perceptual and blood pressure responses to: 1) light load blood flow restriction resistance exercise (BFR-RE) in non-injured individuals and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) patients; and 2) light load BFR-RE and heavy load RE (HL-RE) in ACLR patients. Design: Between-subjects, partially-randomised. Methods: This study comprised 3 groups: non-injured BFR-RE (NI-BFR); ACLR patients BFR-RE (ACLR-BFR); ACLR patients HL-RE (ACLR-HL). NI-BFR and ACLR-BFR performed 4 sets (30, 15, 15, 15 reps, total = 75 reps, 30s inter-set rest) of unilateral leg press exercise at 30% 1RM with continuous BFR at 80% limb occlusive pressure. ACLR-HL performed 3 × 10 reps (Total = 30 reps, 30s inter-set rest) of unilateral leg press exercise at 70% 1RM. Perceived exertion (RPE), muscle pain, knee pain and pre- and 5-min post-exercise blood pressure were measured. Results: RPE was higher in ACLR-BFR compared to NI-BFR (p < 0.05). Muscle pain was higher in NI-BFR and ACLR-BFR compared to ACLR-HL (p < 0.05). Knee pain was lower in ACLR-BFR compared to ACLR-HL (p < 0.01). There were no differences in blood pressure. Conclusion: These responses to BFR exercise may not limit application and favourably influence knee pain throughout ACLR rehabilitation training programmes. These findings can help inform practitioners' decisions to utilise this tool.
KW - Blood flow restriction
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - Strength
KW - Surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053124886&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.07.002
DO - 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.07.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 30014968
AN - SCOPUS:85053124886
SN - 1466-853X
VL - 33
SP - 54
EP - 61
JO - Physical Therapy in Sport
JF - Physical Therapy in Sport
ER -