背景:血流限制(BFR)训练可改善肌肉力量和功能结果,但是这种技术在康复领域的本体感受意义仍然未知。
目的:本研究旨在评估BFR在稳定性和平衡性能方面的影响。
方法:在这项试点随机交叉研究中,纳入健康年轻人,并随机分为A组和B组,两组均接受了佩戴和不佩戴BFR装置的体位评估.A组的研究参与者接受了佩戴BFR的姿势基线评估,然后移除BFR进行进一步评估。而B组的受试者在没有BFR和BFR的情况下进行基线评估。机器人平台Hunova评估了稳定性和平衡性能,平衡错误评分系统(BESS),自我报告的感知平衡(7点李克特量表),和不适感自我评估。此外,记录了安全性.
结果:纳入14名受试者,随机分为A组(n:7)和B组(n:7)。在Hunova机器人平台上进行的静态条件下的平衡测试中,睁眼(OE)的平均距离RMS(均方根)显示出显着差异,前后(AP)躯干振荡范围与OE,具有OE的中外侧(ML)平均振荡速度,闭眼总偏移AP范围(CE)(BFR:3.44±1.06;无BFR:2.75±0.72;p=0.041)。此外,弹性平衡试验显示Romberg指数存在差异(BFR:0.16±0.16;无BFR:0.09±0.07;p=0.047)。未报告不良事件。
结论:综合来看,我们的数据显示,BFR影响健康受试者的平衡表现.需要进一步的研究来更好地表征BFR治疗在特定康复方案中的可能作用。
BACKGROUND: Blood flow restriction (BFR) training improves muscle strength and functional outcomes, but the proprioceptive implications of this technique in the rehabilitation field are still unknown.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed at assessing the effects of BFR in terms of stabilometric and balance performance.
METHODS: In this pilot randomized cross-over study, healthy young adults were included and randomly assigned to Groups A and B. Both groups underwent a postural assessment with and without wearing a BFR device. Study participants of Group A underwent postural baseline assessment wearing BFR and then removed BFR for further evaluations, whereas subjects in Group B performed the baseline assessment without BFR and then with BFR. Stabilometric and balance performance were assessed by the robotic platform Hunova, the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS), the self-reported perceived balance (7-point Likert scale), and discomfort self-rated assessment. Moreover, the safety profile was recorded.
RESULTS: Fourteen subjects were included and randomly assigned to Group A (n: 7) and Group B (n: 7). Significant differences were shown in balance tests in static conditions performed on the Hunova robot platform in terms of average distance RMS (root-mean-square) with open eyes (OE), anteroposterior (AP) trunk oscillation range with OE, mediolateral (ML) average speed of oscillation with OE, and total excursion AP range with closed eyes (CE) (BFR: 3.44 ± 1.06; without BFR: 2.75 ± 0.72; p= 0.041). Moreover, elastic balance test showed differences in Romberg index (BFR: 0.16 ±0.16; without BFR: 0.09 ± 0.07; p= 0.047). No adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our data showed that BFR affects balance performance of healthy subjects. Further studies are needed to better characterize the possible role of BFR treatment in the context of a specific rehabilitation protocol.