
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

35391871
33151
10.26603/001c.33151
Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis
Effect of Low-Load Blood Flow Restriction Training After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
Koc Baris B. 1
Truyens Alexander 1
Heymans Marion J.L.F. 2
Jansen Edwin J.P. 1
Schotanus Martijn G.M. 3
1 Department of Orthopedics and Sports Surgery Zuyderland Medical Center
2 Zuyderland Academy Zuyderland Medical Center
3 Department of Orthopedics and Sports Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Centre; School of Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Life Sciences, Maastricht University Medical Centre
Corresponding author: Baris B. Koc Zuyderland Medical Centre, Dr. H. vd Hoffplein 1, 6162 AG Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands Phone: +32 484 19 12 24 Email: baris.koc1991@gmail.com
1 4 2022
2022
17 3 334346
26 7 2021
23 1 2022
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

Quadriceps strength and mass deficits are common after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Postoperatively, heavy load resistance training can have detrimental effects on knee joint pain and ACL graft laxity. Therefore, low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training has been suggested as an alternative to traditional strength rehabilitation.

Purpose

The present systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of LL-BFR training on quadriceps strength, quadriceps mass, knee joint pain, and ACL graft laxity after ACL reconstruction compared to non-BFR training.

Study design

Systematic review

Methods

A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE.com, Cochrane Library/Wiley, CINAHL/Ebsco and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics was performed on 19 February 2021. Studies were included if they compared LL-BFR and non-BFR training after ACL reconstruction with pre- and post-intervention quadriceps strength, quadriceps mass, knee joint pain or ACL graft laxity measurement. Systematic reviews, editorials, case reports and studies not published in a scientific peer reviewed journal were excluded. The risk of bias of randomized studies was assessed with the use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

Results

A total of six randomized controlled trials were included. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment was defined as high risk in two of the six studies. In all studies blinding of participants and personnel was unclear or could not be performed. The included studies used different LL-BFR and non-BFR protocols with heterogeneous outcome measurements. Therefore, a qualitative analysis was performed. Two of the six studies assessed quadriceps strength and demonstrated significant greater quadriceps strength after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training. Quadriceps mass was evaluated in four studies. Two studies observed significant greater quadriceps mass after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training, while two studies observed no significant difference in quadriceps mass. Knee joint pain was assessed in three studies with significantly less knee joint pain after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training. Two studies evaluated ACL graft laxity and observed no significant difference in ACL graft laxity between LL-BFR and non-BFR training.

Conclusion

The results of this systematic review indicate that LL-BFR training after ACL reconstruction may be beneficial on quadriceps strength, quadriceps mass, and knee joint pain compared to non-BFR training with non-detrimental effects on ACL graft laxity. However, more randomized controlled trials with standardized intervention protocols and outcome measurements are needed to add evidence on the clinical value of LL-BFR training.

Level of evidence

2a

resistance training
quadriceps strength
quadriceps mass
postoperative rehabilitation
knee pain
graft laxity
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Quadriceps strength and mass deficits are common after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.1–6 Approximately 30% of patients have quadriceps strength deficits 12 months after ACL surgery.1,3 Quadriceps mass deficits can be as high as 30% and can persist for many years after ACL reconstruction.5 Furthermore, quadriceps mass deficits can negatively affect quadriceps strength.7–9 This is of importance as quadriceps strength after ACL reconstruction is associated with patient reported outcome measurements, functional performance, return to sport and ACL re-injury.1,10–16 Therefore, interventions to address quadriceps strength and mass deficits after ACL reconstruction are imperative.

Heavy load resistance (HLR) training using external loads >60% of one repetition maximum (1RM) is recommended to increase quadriceps strength and mass.17 However, after ACL reconstruction, training with external loads >60% 1RM can have detrimental effects on knee joint pain and ACL graft laxity.18–23 Therefore, low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training using external loads of 20-40% 1RM has been suggested as an alternative to traditional strength rehabilitation.24,25 During LL-BFR training, a pressurized cuff is applied to the proximal thigh that occludes venous outflow while maintaining arterial inflow.24,25 The combination of venous occlusion and resistance training is believed to induce muscle hypertrophy secondary to elevated systematic hormone production, cell swelling, production of reactive oxygen species, intramuscular anabolic signaling and fast-twitch fiber recruitment.25–27

A recent systematic review showed promising results of LL-BFR training on quadriceps mass after ACL reconstruction.28 As LL-BFR training is an increasingly popular method for the rehabilitation after an ACL reconstruction, it is important to evaluate the value of this treatment.24,25 Therefore, the present systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of LL-BFR training on quadriceps strength, quadriceps mass, knee joint pain and ACL graft laxity after ACL reconstruction compared to non-BFR training.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020163467) and was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines.29

Search strategy and study selection

A systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE.com, Cochrane Library/Wiley, CINAHL/Ebsco and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics was performed on 19 February 2021 (BK, MH). The following search terms, including all synonyms, were used to search in all databases as index term and as free-text words: blood flow restriction and anterior cruciate ligament (See Appendix 1 for the detailed search strategy). The results of the literature search were collected in the reference management program RefWorks and were de-duplicated.30 Studies were included if they compared LL-BFR and non-BFR training after ACL reconstruction with pre- and post-intervention quadriceps strength or quadriceps mass or knee joint pain or ACL graft laxity measurement. Non-BFR training was defined as strength training without vascular restriction. The exclusion criteria were: systematic reviews, editorials, case reports and studies not published in a scientific, peer reviewed journal. Two reviewers (BK and AT) separately and independently screened all titles and abstracts. The full text was reviewed if title and abstract suggested a study of interest. In case of disagreement, consensus was achieved by a third researcher (MS). In addition, trial reference lists of included studies were screened for relevant articles.

Data extraction

Data of included articles were extracted with the use of RevMan 5.4 (Review Manager 5.4, The Cochrane Centre Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020) including: year of publication, study design, number of patients, study arms, graft used for ACL reconstruction, patient characteristics, LL-BFR training protocol, non-BFR training protocol, and quadriceps strength, quadriceps mass, knee joint pain, and ACL graft laxity measurements.31 When raw data of outcome measurements were not available, the authors were contacted to provide raw data.

Study quality and reporting

The independent reviewers (BK and AT) assessed the risk of bias of the included studies with the use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Non-randomized studies were assessed with the ROBINS-I checklist.32 The included studies were evaluated on: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias.

Data synthesis

Outcome measurements were extracted with the use of RevMan 5.4.31 The difference in pre- and post-intervention mean and standard deviation (SD) was used to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD). In case SD was not available, this was estimated in accordance with recommendations provided by Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.33 Data were pooled for a meta-analysis if the included studies were clinically, methodologically and statistically homogenous. In case of considerable heterogeneity (I2 >75%) of the study results, a qualitative analysis was performed.34 The level of statistical significance was set at p≤0.05.

RESULTS

Study selection and characteristics

The database search yielded 1474 articles. After initial title and abstract screening, 11 articles were assessed for eligibility. The remaining 11 articles were fully read and six articles met the inclusion criteria. The two independent reviewers agreed on selection of eligible studies and achieved consensus on which studies to include. No additional studies were identified through reference list screening. Therefore, six articles were included in the systematic review (Figure 1). Table 1 shows an overview of the study characteristics.

84094 Figure 1. Flow chart of the literature search and selection procedure.

84095 Table 1. Overview of study characteristics.

Author (Year)	Study design	Total number of patients	Study arms
(No.)	Outcome	
Hughes
(2019a)	Randomized controlled trial	24	LL-BFR group (n=12)
Non-BFR group (n=12)	Quadriceps strength
Quadriceps mass
Knee joint pain
ACL graft laxity	
Hughes
(2019b)	Randomized controlled trial	24	LL-BFR group (n=12)
Non-BFR group (n=12)	Knee joint pain	
Hughes
(2018)	Randomized controlled trial	20	LL-BFR group (n=10)
Non-BFR group (n=10)	Knee joint pain	
Iversen
(2014)	Randomized controlled trial	24	LL-BFR group (n=12)
Non-BFR group (n=12)	Quadriceps mass	
Ohta
(2003)	Randomized controlled trial	44	LL-BFR group (n=22)
Non-BFR group (n=22)	Quadriceps strength
Quadriceps mass
ACL graft laxity	
Takarada
(2000)	Controlled trial	16	LL-BFR group (n=8)
Non-BFR group (n=8)	Quadriceps mass	
LL-BFR: Low-load blood flow restriction.

Three studies were conducted in the United Kingdom, two in Japan and one in Norway.18,35–39 The studies conducted in the United Kingdom are three reports from the same study.18,35,36 However, the three reports from the same study described different outcome measurements, thus, were included in this review. The included studies involved a total of 152 patients who had been randomized into LL-BFR (n=76) or non-BFR (n=76) group.18,35–39 Sample sizes ranged between 16 and 44 patients.18,35–39 Five studies used hamstring graft for ACL reconstruction, whereas one study did not report type of graft.18,35–39 Patient characteristics were not statistically significant different between the LL-BFR and non-BFR group. Table 2 shows an overview of the patient characteristics.

84096 Table 2. Overview of patient characteristics.

Author (Year)	Graft for ACL reconstruction	Male in LL-BFR & non-BFR group	Age (years) in LL-BFR & non-BFR group	Weight (kg) in LL-BFR & non-BFR group	BMI in LL-BFR & non-BFR group	
Hughes
(2019a)	Hamstring	7 (58%) & 10 (83%)	29 (7) & 29 (7)	76 (15) & 79 (15)	25.4 (3.9) & 26.4 (4.4)	
Hughes
(2019b)	Hamstring	7 (58%) & 10 (83%)	29 (7) & 29 (7)	76 (15) & 79 (15)	25.4 (3.9) & 26.4 (4.4)	
Hughes
(2018)	Hamstring	6 (60%) & 7 (70%)	29 (5) & 31 (7)	77 (16) & 81 (12)	25.7 (4.2) & 23.5 (3.4)	
Iversen
(2014)	Hamstring	7 (58%) & 7 (58%)	25 (7) & 30 (9)	77 (12) & 78 (10)	-	
Ohta
(2003)	Hamstring	13 (59%) & 12 (55%)	28 (10) & 30 (10)	65 (14) & 63 (9)	-	
Takarada
(2000)	-	4 (50%) & 4 (50%)	22 (1) & 23 (1)	59 (1) & 62 (2)	-	
Results are presented as numbers (percentage) or mean (SD). ACL: anterior cruciate ligament; BMI: body mass index; LL-BFR: low-load blood flow restriction.

LL-BFR and non-BFR protocols

The intervention protocols are shown in Table 3. The duration of the intervention varied from 11 days up to 14 weeks and training sessions varied from two sessions/week up to two sessions/day.18,35–39 LL-BFR training was used in combination with low-load leg press, leg extension or straight leg raise exercises.18,35–39 The external load varied from body weight up to 30% 1RM and was not specified in two studies.18,35–39 Automatic personalized tourniquet systems and pneumatic cuffs were used during LL-BFR training.18,35–39 The occlusion pressure ranged between 148 and 238 mmHg, while cuff width ranged from 9 to 14 cm.18,35–39 In three studies LL-BFR pressure was defined as 80% of the limb occlusion pressure (ranged from 140 to 160 mmHg), whereas the occlusion pressure was based on previous research in three studies (ranged from 180 to 240mmHg).18,35–39 LL-BFR was intermittently applied with reperfusion periods ranging from 30 to 180 seconds.18,35,36,38,39 In three studies, non-BFR training consisted of the same exercise protocol as LL-BFR training but without vascular restriction.37–39 Hughes et al. used different exercise protocols in the non-BFR and LL-BFR group.18,35,36 In the non-BFR group, the patients performed three sets of 10 repetitions using external loads of 70% 1RM. In the LL-BFR group, the patients performed four sets (30-15-15-15) using external loads of 30% 1RM.18,35,36

84097 Table 3. Overview of intervention.

Author (Year)	BFR device	Cuff width	BFR pressure	LL-BFR training	Non-BFR training	Exercises	Duration	Total training sessions	
Hughes
(2019a)	Automatic personalized tourniquet system	11.5 cm	Mean 150 mmHg

Based on 80% of LOP	4 sets (30-15-15-15 reps)

Interset rest periods: 30 seconds

External load: 30% 1RM

Session: 2x/week	3 sets (10-10-10 reps)

Interset rest periods: 30 seconds

External load: 70% 1RM

Session: 2x/week	Unilateral leg press	8 weeks

Start: 2 weeks postop

End: 10 weeks postop	16	
Hughes
(2019b)	Automatic personalized tourniquet system	11.5 cm	Mean 150 mmHg

Based on 80% of LOP	4 sets (30-15-15-15 reps)

Interset rest periods: 30 seconds

External load: 30% 1RM

Session: 2x/week	3 sets (10-10-10 reps)

Interset rest periods: 30 seconds

External load: 70% 1RM

Session: 2x/week	Unilateral leg press	8 weeks

Start: 2 weeks postop

End: 10 weeks postop	16	
Hughes
(2018)	Automatic personalized tourniquet system	11.5 cm	Mean 148 mmHg

Based on 80% of LOP	4 sets (30-15-15-15 reps)

Interset rest periods: 30 seconds

External load: 30% 1RM

Session: 2x/week	3 sets (10-10-10 reps)

Interset rest periods: 30 seconds

External load: 70% 1RM

Session: 2x/week	Unilateral leg press	8 weeks

Start: 2 weeks postop

End: 10 weeks postop	16	
Iversen
(2014)	Contoured pneumatic occlusion cuff	14 cm	Start:130 mmHg

End: 180 mmHg

Based on previous research	5 sets of 20 reps

Interset rest periods: 3 minutes

External load: low

Session: 2x/day	5 sets of 20 reps

Interset rest periods: 3 minutes

External load: low

Session: 2x/day	Isometric quadriceps contraction progressing to leg extension over a knee-roll and straight leg raise	12 days

Start: 2 days postop

End: 14 days postop	24	
Ohta
(2003)	Hand-pumped air tourniquet	-	180 mmHg

Based on previous research	1-3 sets (20 reps)

Interset rest periods: unknown

External load: 0-14 kg

Session: 6x/week	1-3 sets (20 reps)

Interset rest periods: unknown

External load: 0-14 kg

Session: 6x/week	Straight leg raise, hip joint abduction/ adduction, half squat, step up, elastic tube and knee-bending walking exercise	14 weeks

Start: 2 weeks postop

End: 16 weeks postop	84	
Takarada
(2000)	Pneumatic occlusion cuff	9 cm	Start: 180 mmHg

End: 238 mmHg

Based on previous research	5 sets

Interset rest periods: 3 minutes

External load: low

Session: 2x/day	5 sets

Interset rest periods: 3 minutes

External load: low

Session: 2x/day	Hospital rehabilitation protocol with knee brace immobilization	11 days

Start: 3 days postop

End: 14 days postop	22	
LL-BFR: low-load blood flow restriction; LOP: limb occlusion pressure; 1RM: one repetition maximum; Postop: postoperatively; Reps: repetitions.

Risk of bias

An overview of the quality assessment of the included studies is reported in Figure 2. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment was defined as high risk for bias in two of the six studies. In all studies blinding of participants and personnel was unclear or could not be performed.

84098 Figure 2. Review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias domain with the use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

Heterogeneity

Comorbidities and concomitant injuries of study participants were not defined in the included studies. Furthermore, different LL-BFR and non-BFR protocols with heterogeneous outcome measurements were used. Therefore, only a qualitative analysis was performed.

Outcome measurements

Quadriceps strength

Quadriceps strength was evaluated in two studies by measuring RM, isokinetic contraction at 60°/seconds, isokinetic contraction at 150°/seconds, isokinetic contraction at 180°/seconds, isokinetic contraction at 300°/seconds or isometric contraction at 60° knee flexion.35,37 Quadriceps strength was measured pre-operatively and at nine up to 16 weeks postoperatively.35,37 Ohta et al. showed significantly less strength deficits in isokinetic knee extension at 60°/seconds (p<0.001), isokinetic knee extension at 180°/seconds (p=0.004) and isometric contraction at 60° knee flexion (p<0.001) after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training.37 Hughes et al. reported significantly less strength deficits in isokinetic knee extension at 150° and 300°/seconds after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training (p=0.010).35 However, no significant differences in RM (p=0.220) and isokinetic knee extension at 60°/seconds (p=0.200) were observed between LL-BFR and non-BFR training.35

Quadriceps mass

Three studies used MRI to measure changes in quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA), while one study used ultrasound to measure changes in vastus lateralis muscle thickness.35,37–39 Quadriceps mass was measured pre-operatively and 14 days up to 16 weeks postoperatively.35,37–39 Takarada et al. showed significant less reduction in quadriceps CSA after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training (p=0.046).38 Ohta et. al reported a significant increase in quadriceps CSA after 14 weeks LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training (p=0.040).37 Iversen et al. concluded that there was no significant difference in quadriceps CSA between LL-BFR and non-BFR training (p=0.626).39 Hughes et al. used ultrasound to assess changes in vastus lateralis muscle thickness and demonstrated no significant difference in quadriceps increase between LL-BFR and non-BFR training (p=0.230).35

Knee joint pain

Knee joint pain was assessed using a numerical rating scale in two studies, while one study used the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score.18,35,36 Knee joint pain was evaluated following each session, 24h post-exercise or 10 weeks postoperatively.18,35,36 Two studies observed significant lower knee joint pain scores in LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training.18,36 Furthermore, one study showed significant greater increase in KOOS pain score after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training.35

ACL graft laxity

Two studies used a knee ligament arthrometer to measure changes in ACL graft laxity.35,37 ACL graft laxity was measured pre-operatively and at 10 up to 16 weeks postoperatively. No significant difference in ACL graft laxity was observed between LL-BFR and non-BFR.35,37

DISCUSSION

The most important finding of the present systematic review was that low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction may be beneficial on quadriceps strength and quadriceps mass compared to non-BFR training. Furthermore, LL-BFR training may decrease knee joint pain compared to non-BFR training with similar effects on ACL graft laxity. Thus, the present systematic review suggests that LL-BFR training may be an effective alternative to non-BFR training after an ACL reconstruction.

Regarding quadriceps strength, Ohta et al. showed less quadriceps strength deficits after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training.37 In addition, Hughes et al. demonstrated similar and greater effects on quadriceps strength after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training.35 Ohta. at al used low-load resistance training (LLR) training as non-BFR training, while Hughes et al. used heavy-load resistance training (HLR) training as non-BFR training. Therefore, the findings of the present review are consistent with current literature comparing LL-BFR training to LLR and HLR training in healthy and postoperative patients.40–46

In regard to quadriceps mass, two studies demonstrated that LL-BFR training was more beneficial on quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA) compared to non-BFR training.37,38 In contrast, Iversen et al. observed no difference in quadriceps CSA between LL-BFR and non-BFR training.39 The authors acknowledged that subtherapeutic training (e.g. training duration of 12 days) and LL-BFR application (e.g. no personalized BFR pressures) were possible reasons for this difference.39 Current evidence recommends training durations of 6-12 weeks and the use of personalized LL-BFR pressures (80% of limb occlusion pressure [LOP]) to achieve muscle strength and hypertrophy.23–25 In contrast to the previous studies, the non-BFR group of Hughes et al. did not consist of LLR but HLR training.35 In their study, ultrasound was used to examine vastus lateralis muscle thickness and no difference in muscle thickness was observed between LL-BFR and non-BFR training groups.35 Thus, the results of the present review are consistent with literature showing that LL-BFR training may be beneficial on quadriceps mass compared to LLR training and equally effective when compared to HLR training in healthy and postoperative patients.40–46

The application of LL-BFR has generally been indicated for the elderly or injured/postoperative patients who cannot tolerate high external loads.43,47–50 This review adds evidence on the application of LL-BFR as three studies assessing pain observed improved pain relief with LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training in patients following ACL surgery.18,35,36 This is in contrast with a recent systematic review that observed no significant difference in pain relief between LL-BFR and non-BFR training in individuals with knee joint pain.51 The study participants were heterogeneous and included individuals with patellofemoral pain, risk of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, anterior knee pain and post knee arthroscopy.51 Furthermore, the heterogeneity in LL-BFR pressures and cuff width could explain the lack of effect on knee joint pain.51 Current evidence suggests that therapeutic restriction (defined as 80% of LOP) is achieved at lower LL-BFR pressures with wide compared to narrow cuffs.52–56 Furthermore, lower LL-BFR pressures are associated with less discomfort and greater safety.52–56 Thus, the use of non-personalized pressures without calculating the LOP may cause pain.52–56 In the present systematic review, all studies on knee joint pain used wide cuffs with an automatic personalized tourniquet system to calculate the LOP.18,35,36 Furthermore, all studies used HLR training as non-BFR training. Thus, pain relief may be the result of low external loads and hypoalgesia effects of LL-BFR training compared to HLR training.47,48,57,58

A major challenge in the rehabilitation after an ACL reconstruction is optimizing muscle strength while minimizing mechanical stress to the knee joint.59–61 The importance is represented by the remodeling process of the ACL graft. The remodeling process consists of three phases and the restructuring towards the properties of an intact (non-injured) ACL takes more than six months after reconstruction.21,62 Thereby, accelerated rehabilitation protocols and high load resistance training may compromise graft remodeling and may result in increased ACL graft laxity.19–21,63 BFR training in combination with low external loads has the advantage of minimizing mechanical stress to the knee joint compared to HLR training.47,48 However, in the present systematic review only two studies evaluated ACL graft laxity and showed no significant difference on ACL graft laxity with LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training.35,37 Therefore, more randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effect of LL-BFR training on ACL graft laxity compared to HLR training.

The present systematic review has several limitations. First of all, due to the heterogeneity in intervention protocols and outcome measurements no meta-analysis could be performed. Secondly, differences in LL-BFR and non-BFR protocols affect the results of the present systematic review. Three studies compared LL-BFR training to HLR training, while three other studies compared LL-BFR training to LLR training.18,35–39 Furthermore, three of the six studies used LL-BFR protocols as recommended by current evidence.18,35,36 Thirdly, blinding of participants and personnel could not be performed or was unclear in the included studies.18,35–39 This could affect the results, as the patients may have experienced a nonspecific effect or a placebo effect due to the novel nature of LL-BFR training. Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies ranged from moderate to good. Lastly, no long-term effects of LL-BFR training after ACL reconstruction were reported.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review indicate that LL-BFR training after ACL reconstruction may be beneficial on quadriceps strength, quadriceps mass, and knee joint pain compared to non-BFR training with non-detrimental effects on ACL graft laxity. However, more randomized controlled trials with operational definitions, standardized intervention protocols and outcome measurements are needed to add evidence on the clinical value of LL-BFR training.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts.

Supplementary Material

Appendix 1
==== Refs
Young athletes after ACL reconstruction with quadriceps strength asymmetry at the time of return-to-sport demonstrate decreased knee function 1 year later Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Ithurburn Matthew P. Altenburger Alex R. Thomas Staci Hewett Timothy E. Paterno Mark V. Schmitt Laura C. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2018
26 2 426 433 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-017-4678-4 10.1007/s00167-017-4678-4
Factors predicting quadriceps femoris muscle atrophy during the first 12 weeks following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction The Knee Grapar Žargi T. Drobnič Matej Vauhnik Renata Koder Jadran Kacin Alan 3 2017
24 2 319 328 0968-0160 10.1016/j.knee.2016.11.003 10.1016/j.knee.2016.11.003 27923622
Recovery of preoperative absolute knee extension and flexion strength after ACL reconstruction BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation Piussi Ramana Broman Daniel Musslinder Erik Beischer Susanne Thomeé Roland Hamrin Senorski Eric Springer Science and Business Media LLC 12 2020
12 1 77 84 2052-1847 10.1186/s13102-020-00222-8 10.1186/s13102-020-00222-8 33302996
Quadriceps and hamstring strength symmetry after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective study J Sports Rehabil Harput G. Tunay V.B. Ithurburn M. 2020
30 1 8
Quadriceps muscle size following ACL injury and reconstruction: a systematic review Journal of Orthopaedic Research Birchmeier Thomas Lisee Caroline Kane Kevin Brazier Brett Triplett Ashley Kuenze Christopher 2020
38 3 598 608 0736-0266 10.1002/jor.24489 10.1002/jor.24489 31608490
Longitudinal assessment of quadriceps muscle morphology before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and its associations with patient-reported outcomes Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Garcia Steven A. Curran Michael T. Palmieri-Smith Riann M. SAGE Publications 24 2 2020
12 3 271 278 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738119898210 10.1177/1941738119898210 32091298
Muscle hypotrophy, not inhibition, is responsible for quadriceps weakness during rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Fukunaga Takumi Johnson Christopher D. Nicholas Stephen J. McHugh Malachy P. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2019
27 2 573 579 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-018-5166-1 10.1007/s00167-018-5166-1
Quadriceps function relates to muscle size following ACL reconstruction Journal of Orthopaedic Research Kuenze Christopher M. Blemker Silvia S. Hart Joseph M. Wiley 27 1 2016
34 9 1656 1662 0736-0266 10.1002/jor.23166 10.1002/jor.23166
Muscle atrophy contributes to quadriceps weakness after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Thomas Abbey C. Wojtys Edward M. Brandon Catherine Palmieri-Smith Riann M. 1 2016
19 1 7 11 1440-2440 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.12.009 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.12.009 25683732
Quadriceps function, knee pain, and self-reported outcomes in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Journal of Athletic Training Lepley Adam S. Pietrosimone Brian Cormier Marc L. 1 4 2018
53 4 337 346 1062-6050 10.4085/1062-6050-245-16 10.4085/1062-6050-245-16 29667429
Low rates of patients meeting return to sport criteria 9 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective longitudinal study Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Welling Wouter Benjaminse Anne Seil Romain Lemmink Koen Zaffagnini Stefano Gokeler Alli 24 3 2018
26 12 3636 3644 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-018-4916-4 10.1007/s00167-018-4916-4 29574548
Associations among quadriceps strength and rate of torque development 6 weeks post anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and future hop and vertical jump performance: a prospective cohort study Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Pua Yong-Hao Mentiplay Benjamin F. Clark Ross A. Ho Jia-Ying 13 10 2017
47 845 852 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2017.7133 10.2519/jospt.2017.7133
Young athletes with quadriceps femoris strength asymmetry at return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction demonstrate asymmetric single-leg drop-landing mechanics The American Journal of Sports Medicine Ithurburn Matthew P. Paterno Mark V. Ford Kevin R. Hewett Timothy E. Schmitt Laura C. SAGE Publications 10 9 2015
43 11 2727 2737 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546515602016 10.1177/0363546515602016
The relationship between quadriceps strength asymmetry and knee biomechanics asymmetry during walking in individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Gait & Posture Shi Huijuan Huang Hongshi Ren Shuang Yu Yuanyuan Liang Zixuan Wang Qi Hu Xiaoqing Ao Yingfang 9 2019
73 74 79 0966-6362 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.07.151 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.07.151 31302335
Likelihood of ACL graft rupture: not meeting six clinical discharge criteria before return to sport is associated with a four times greater risk of rupture British Journal of Sports Medicine Kyritsis Polyvios Bahr Roald Landreau Philippe Miladi Riadh Witvrouw Erik 23 5 2016
50 15 946 951 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095908 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095908
Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study British Journal of Sports Medicine Grindem Hege Snyder-Mackler Lynn Moksnes Håvard Engebretsen Lars Risberg May Arna 9 5 2016
50 13 804 808 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031 27162233
Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise American College of Sports Medicine 3 2009
41 3 687 708 0195-9131 10.1249/mss.0b013e3181915670 10.1249/mss.0b013e3181915670 19204579
Examination of the comfort and pain experienced with blood flow restriction training during post-surgery rehabilitation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patients: a UK national health service trial Physical Therapy in Sport Hughes Luke Patterson Stephen David Haddad Fares Rosenblatt Benjamin Gissane Conor McCarthy Daniel Clarke Thomas Ferris Graham Dawes Joanna Paton Bruce 9 2019
39 90 98 1466-853X 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.06.014 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.06.014 31288213
An early return to vigorous activity may destabilize anterior cruciate ligaments reconstructed with hamstring grafts Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Fujimoto Eisaku Sumen Yoshio Urabe Yukio Deie Masataka Murakami Yuji Adachi Nobuo Ochi Mitsuo 2 2004
85 2 298 302 0003-9993 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00621-x 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00621-x
“Biological failure” of the anterior cruciate ligament graft Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Ménétrey J. Duthon V. B. Laumonier T. Fritschy D. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 9 1 2008
16 3 224 231 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-007-0474-x 10.1007/s00167-007-0474-x
Intra-articular remodelling of hamstring tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Janssen Rob P. A. Scheffler Sven U. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2014
22 9 2102 2108 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-013-2634-5 10.1007/s00167-013-2634-5 23982759
Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of programs administered over 2 different time intervals The American Journal of Sports Medicine Beynnon Bruce D. Uh Benjamin S. Johnson Robert J. Abate Joseph A. Nichols Claude E. Fleming Braden C. Poole A. Robin Roos Harald 3 2005
33 3 347 359 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546504268406 10.1177/0363546504268406 15716250
The role of blood flow restriction therapy following knee surgery: expert opinion Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery DePhillipo Nicholas N. Kennedy Mitchell I. Aman Zach S. Bernhardson Andrew S. O'Brien Luke T. LaPrade Robert F. 8 2018
34 8 2506 2510 0749-8063 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.05.038 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.05.038 30077275
Blood flow restriction and its function in post-operative anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction therapy: expert opinion Arch Bone Jt Surg Humes C. Aguero S. Chahla J. Foad A. 2020
8 570 574 33088857
Blood flow restriction therapy: where we are and where we are going Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Vopat Bryan G. Vopat Lisa M. Bechtold Megan M. Hodge Kevin A. 15 6 2020
28 12 e493 e500 1067-151X 10.5435/jaaos-d-19-00347 10.5435/jaaos-d-19-00347
A review on the mechanisms of blood-flow restriction resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy Sports Medicine Pearson Stephen John Hussain Syed Robiul Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2015
45 2 187 200 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-014-0264-9 10.1007/s40279-014-0264-9 25249278
Mechanisms behind blood flow-restricted training and its effect toward muscle growth Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Hwang Paul S. Willoughby Darryn S. 7 2019
33 1 S167 S179 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002384 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002384 30011262
A systematic review of the effects of blood flow restriction training on muscle atrophy and circumference post ACL reconstruction International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy Charles Derek White Ryan Reyes Caleb Palmer Drew 12 2020
15 6 882 891 2159-2896 10.26603/ijspt20200882 10.26603/ijspt20200882 33344004
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation BMJ Shamseer L. Moher D. Clarke M. Ghersi D. Liberati A. Petticrew M. Shekelle P. Stewart L. A. the PRISMA-P Group 2 1 2015
349 g7647 1756-1833 10.1136/bmj.g7647 10.1136/bmj.g7647
RefWorks Ann Arbour 2021-2 https://www.refworks.com/refworks2/ URL:
Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 2021-2 https://training.cochrane.org/ URL:
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions BMJ Sterne Jonathan AC Hernán Miguel A Reeves Barnaby C Savović Jelena Berkman Nancy D Viswanathan Meera Henry David Altman Douglas G Ansari Mohammed T Boutron Isabelle Carpenter James R Chan An-Wen Churchill Rachel Deeks Jonathan J Hróbjartsson Asbjørn Kirkham Jamie Jüni Peter Loke Yoon K Pigott Theresa D Ramsay Craig R Regidor Deborah Rothstein Hannah R Sandhu Lakhbir Santaguida Pasqualina L Schünemann Holger J Shea Beverly Shrier Ian Tugwell Peter Turner Lucy Valentine Jeffrey C Waddington Hugh Waters Elizabeth Wells George A Whiting Penny F Higgins Julian PT 12 10 2016
355 i4919 1756-1833 10.1136/bmj.i4919 10.1136/bmj.i4919 27733354
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ Higgins J. P. T. Altman D. G. Gotzsche P. C. Juni P. Moher D. Oxman A. D. Savovic J. Schulz K. F. Weeks L. Sterne J. A. C. Cochrane Bias Methods Group Cochrane Statistical Methods Group BMJ 18 10 2011
343 oct18 2 d5928 d5928 0959-8138 10.1136/bmj.d5928 10.1136/bmj.d5928 22008217
Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cumpston Miranda Li Tianjing Page Matthew J Chandler Jacqueline Welch Vivian A Higgins Julian PT Thomas James Cochrane Editorial Unit 3 10 2019
10:ed000142 1465-1858 10.1002/14651858.ed000142 10.1002/14651858.ed000142
Comparing the effectiveness of blood flow restriction and traditional heavy load resistance training in the post-surgery rehabilitation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patients: a UK national health service randomised controlled trial. Sports Medicine Hughes Luke Rosenblatt Benjamin Haddad Fares Gissane Conor McCarthy Daniel Clarke Thomas Ferris Graham Dawes Joanna Paton Bruce Patterson Stephen David 12 7 2019
49 11 1787 1805 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-019-01137-2 10.1007/s40279-019-01137-2
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 Physical Therapy in Sport Hughes Luke Paton Bruce Haddad Fares Rosenblatt Benjamin Gissane Conor Patterson Stephen David 9 2018
33 54 61 1466-853X 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.07.002 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.07.002 30014968
Low-load resistance muscular training with moderate restriction of blood flow after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica Ohta Haruyasu Kurosawa Hisashi Ikeda Hiroshi Iwase Yoshiyuki Satou Naohiro Nakamura Shinji 1 2003
74 1 62 68 0001-6470 10.1080/00016470310013680 10.1080/00016470310013680
Applications of vascular occlusion diminish disuse atrophy of knee extensor muscles Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Takarada YUDAI Takazawa HARUO Ishii NAOKATA 12 2000
32 12 2035 2039 0195-9131 10.1097/00005768-200012000-00011 10.1097/00005768-200012000-00011
Intermittent blood flow restriction does not reduce atrophy following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Journal of Sport and Health Science Iversen Erik Røstad Vibeke Larmo Arne 3 2016
5 1 115 118 2095-2546 10.1016/j.jshs.2014.12.005 10.1016/j.jshs.2014.12.005 30356481
Quadriceps strengthening with blood flow restriction for the rehabilitation of patients with knee conditions: a systematic review with meta-analysis Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Van Cant Joachim Dawe-Coz Alexander Aoun Elie Esculier Jean-François 20 7 2020
33 4 529 544 1878-6324 10.3233/bmr-191684 10.3233/bmr-191684
The blood flow restriction training effect in knee osteoarthritis people: a systematic review and meta-analysis Clinical Rehabilitation Ferlito João Vitor Pecce Samantha Angelica Pasa Oselame Lucas De Marchi Thiago 10 8 2020
34 11 1378 1390 0269-2155 10.1177/0269215520943650 10.1177/0269215520943650
Effect of blood‐flow restricted vs heavy‐load strength training on muscle strength: systematic review and meta‐analysis Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports Grønfeldt Birk Mygind Lindberg Nielsen Jakob Mieritz Rune Mygind Lund Hans Aagaard Per 5 2020
30 5 837 848 0905-7188 10.1111/sms.13632 10.1111/sms.13632 32031709
Blood flow-restricted training for lower extremity muscle weakness due to knee pathology: a systematic review Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Barber-Westin Sue Noyes Frank R. 2019
11 1 69 83 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738118811337 10.1177/1941738118811337 30475660
Effects of blood flow restriction training on muscular strength and hypertrophy in older individuals: a systematic review and meta-Analysis Sports Medicine Centner Christoph Wiegel Patrick Gollhofer Albert König Daniel 2019
49 1 95 108 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-018-0994-1 10.1007/s40279-018-0994-1 30306467
Blood flow restriction training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis British Journal of Sports Medicine Hughes Luke Paton Bruce Rosenblatt Ben Gissane Conor Patterson Stephen David 4 3 2017
51 13 1003 1011 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097071 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097071 28259850
Magnitude of muscle strength and mass adaptations between high-load resistance training versus low-load resistance training associate with blood-flow restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis Sports Medicine Lixandrão Manoel E. Ugrinowitsch Carlos Berton Ricardo Vechin Felipe C. Conceição Miguel S. Damas Felipe Libardi Cleiton A. Roschel Hamilton 2018
48 2 361 378 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-017-0795-y 10.1007/s40279-017-0795-y 29043659
Benefits of resistance training with blood flow restriction in knee osteoarthritis Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Ferraz RODRIGO BRANCO Gualano BRUNO Rodrigues REYNALDO KURIMORI CECI OBARA FULLER RICARDO LIMA FERNANDA RODRIGUES DE SÁ-PINTO ANA LÚCIA ROSCHEL HAMILTON 5 2018
50 5 897 905 0195-9131 10.1249/mss.0000000000001530 10.1249/mss.0000000000001530 29266093
Exercises with partial vascular occlusion in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Bryk Flavio Fernandes dos Reis Amir Curcio Fingerhut Deborah Araujo Thomas Schutzer Marcela Cury Ricardo de Paula Leite Duarte Aires Jr. Fukuda Thiago Yukio 12 3 2016
24 5 1580 1586 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-016-4064-7 10.1007/s00167-016-4064-7
Low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction improves clinical outcomes in musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a single-blind randomized controlled Trial Frontiers in Physiology Ladlow Peter Coppack Russell J. Dharm-Datta Shreshth Conway Dean Sellon Edward Patterson Stephen D. Bennett Alexander N. 10 9 2018
9 1269 1664-042X 10.3389/fphys.2018.01269 10.3389/fphys.2018.01269 30246795
Blood flow restriction training after knee arthroscopy: a randomized controlled pilot study Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine Tennent David J. Hylden Christina M. Johnson Anthony E. Burns Travis C. Wilken Jason M. Owens Johnny G. 5 2017
27 3 245 252 1050-642X 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000377 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000377 27749358
The addition of blood flow restriction to resistance exercise in individuals with knee pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy Cuyul-Vásquez Iván Leiva-Sepúlveda Alejandro Catalán-Medalla Oscar Araya-Quintanilla Felipe Gutiérrez-Espinoza Hector 11 2020
24 6 465 478 1413-3555 10.1016/j.bjpt.2020.03.001 10.1016/j.bjpt.2020.03.001 32198025
Blood flow restriction exercise: effects of sex, cuff width, and cuff pressure on perceived lower body discomfort Perceptual and Motor Skills Spitz Robert W. Chatakondi Raksha N. Bell Zachary W. Wong Vickie Viana Ricardo B. Dankel Scott J. Abe Takashi Yamada Yujiro Loenneke Jeremy P. 2021
128 1 353 374 0031-5125 10.1177/0031512520948295 10.1177/0031512520948295 32777996
The effect of cuff width for determining limb occlusion pressure: a comparison of blood flow restriction devices J Exerc Sci Weatherholt A.M. Vanwye W.R. Lohmann J. Owens J.G. 2019
12 136 143
The Influence of cuff width, sex, and race on arterial occlusion: implications for blood flow restriction research Sports Medicine Jessee Matthew B. Buckner Samuel L. Dankel Scott J. Counts Brittany R. Abe Takashi Loenneke Jeremy P. 28 1 2016
46 6 913 921 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-016-0473-5 10.1007/s40279-016-0473-5
Effects of cuff width on arterial occlusion: implications for blood flow restricted exercise European Journal of Applied Physiology Loenneke Jeremy P. Fahs Christopher A. Rossow Lindy M. Sherk Vanessa D. Thiebaud Robert S. Abe Takashi Bemben Debra A. Bemben Michael G. 2012
112 8 2903 2912 1439-6319 10.1007/s00421-011-2266-8 10.1007/s00421-011-2266-8 22143843
Blood flow restricted exercise and discomfort: a review Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Spitz Robert W. Wong Vickie Bell Zachary W. Viana Ricardo B. Chatakondi Raksha N. Abe Takashi Loenneke Jeremy P. 2022
36 3 871 879 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0000000000003525 10.1519/jsc.0000000000003525 32058360
Blood flow restriction induces hypoalgesia in recreationally active adult male anterior knee pain patients allowing therapeutic exercise loading Physical Therapy in Sport Korakakis Vasileios Whiteley Rodney Epameinontidis Konstantinos 7 2018
32 235 243 1466-853X 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.05.021 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.05.021 29879638
Low load resistance training with blood flow restriction decreases anterior knee pain more than resistance training alone. a pilot randomised controlled trial Physical Therapy in Sport Korakakis Vasileios Whiteley Rodney Giakas Giannis 11 2018
34 121 128 1466-853X 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.09.007 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.09.007
ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft and accelerated brace-free rehabilitation: a systematic review of clinical outcomes BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine Janssen Rob P A van Melick Nicky van Mourik Jan B A Reijman Max van Rhijn Lodewijk W 4 2018
4 1 2017 20000301 2055-7647 10.1136/bmjsem-2017-000301 10.1136/bmjsem-2017-000301 29682311
Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Kruse L.M. Gray B. Wright R.W. 3 10 2012
94 19 1737 1748 0021-9355 10.2106/jbjs.k.01246 10.2106/jbjs.k.01246 23032584
Athletes with bone-patellar tendon bone autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were slower to meet rehabilitation milestones and return-to-sport criteria than athletes with hamstring tendon autograft or soft tissue allograft: secondary analysis from the ACL-SPORTS trial Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Smith Angela Hutchinson Capin Jacob J. Zarzycki Ryan Snyder-Mackler Lynn 5 2020
50 5 259 266 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2020.9111 10.2519/jospt.2020.9111 31775553
Assessment of graft maturity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autografts: a systematic review of biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging studies Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation van Groningen Bart van der Steen M.C. Janssen Daan M. van Rhijn Lodewijk W. van der Linden Antoine N. Janssen Rob P.A. 8 2020
2 4 377 388 2666-061X 10.1016/j.asmr.2020.02.008 10.1016/j.asmr.2020.02.008 32875303
Accelerated versus nonaccelerated rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation evaluating knee joint laxity using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis The American Journal of Sports Medicine Beynnon Bruce D. Johnson Robert J. Naud Shelly Fleming Braden C. Abate Joseph A. Brattbakk Bjarne Nichols Claude E. 27 9 2011
39 12 2536 2548 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546511422349 10.1177/0363546511422349
