Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Study Protocol

Physiological and clinical effects of low-intensity blood-flow restricted resistance exercise compared to standard rehabilitation in adults with knee osteoarthritis–Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

  • Brian Sørensen ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    bsoerensen@health.sdu.dk

    Affiliations Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark, Institute of Sports Medicine Copenhagen (ISMC), Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark, Department of Physical & Occupational Therapy, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark

    ⨯
  • Per Aagaard,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark

    ⨯
  • Mikkel H. Hjortshøj,

    Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Institute of Sports Medicine Copenhagen (ISMC), Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark, Department of Physical & Occupational Therapy, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark, Centre for Health and Rehabilitation, University College Absalon, Slagelse, Denmark

    ⨯
  • Sofie K. Hansen,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark

    ⨯
  • Charlotte Suetta,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark, Faculty of Health, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    ⨯
  • Christian Couppé,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Institute of Sports Medicine Copenhagen (ISMC), Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark, Department of Physical & Occupational Therapy, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark

    ⨯
  • S. Peter Magnusson,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Institute of Sports Medicine Copenhagen (ISMC), Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark, Department of Physical & Occupational Therapy, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark

    ⨯
  • Finn E. Johannsen

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Institute of Sports Medicine Copenhagen (ISMC), Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark

    ⨯

Abstract

Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common disease with high socioeconomical costs. In Denmark, standard rehabilitation (SR) consists of a combination of patient education and supervised physical exercise involving a standardized neuromuscular training program. As an evidence-based alternative, high–load (>70% 1RM) resistance training (HIRT) has shown positive rehabilitation effects in knee-OA but may not be tolerated in all patients (~25%) due to knee joint pain. However, low-load resistance training (20–40% 1RM) with concurrent partial blood-flow restriction (BFR) appears to produce effects similar to HIRT yet involving reduced joint pain during and after exercise.

The aim is to examine the effect of low-load BFR training compared to SR on pain, thigh muscle mass and muscle function in adults with knee-OA. We hypothesize that 12 weeks of BFR will lead to superior improvements in pain, muscle mass and mechanical muscle function compared to SR.

Methods and analysis

90 participants diagnosed with radiographic knee-OA will be randomized to either BFR or SR twice a week for 12 weeks. BFR will consist of two selected lower limb strength exercises performed with an inflated pneumatic occlusion cuff. Intervention procedures in SR consist of a full 8 weeks GLA:D course followed by 4 weeks of team group training.

Primary outcome variable is the change in KOOS-Pain subscale from baseline to 12 weeks. Secondary outcome variables are changes in pain sensitivity, functional performance, muscle mass and mechanical muscle function.

Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses will be conducted. One-way analysis of variance will be performed to evaluate between-group changes. Pre-to-post intervention comparisons will be analyzed using a mixed linear model. Regression analysis will be performed to evaluate potential associations between selected outcome variables.

Citation: Sørensen B, Aagaard P, Hjortshøj MH, Hansen SK, Suetta C, Couppé C, et al. (2023) Physiological and clinical effects of low-intensity blood-flow restricted resistance exercise compared to standard rehabilitation in adults with knee osteoarthritis–Protocol for a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 18(12): e0295666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295666

Editor: Daniel Ramskov, Professionshøjskolen UCN: Professionshojskolen UCN, DENMARK

Received: May 23, 2023; Accepted: November 20, 2023; Published: December 14, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Sørensen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding: This work was funded by: - The A.P. Moller Foundation (grant number 20-L-0186) (BS) (https://www.apmollerfonde.dk) - The Health Foundation (grant number 20-B-0214) (BS) (https://helsefonden.dk) - The Danish Rheumatism Association (grant number R181-A6356) (FEJ) (https://www.gigtforeningen.dk) - The Physiotherapy Practice Foundation (grant number R176-A4095) (BS) (https://www.fysio.dk/fafo/fonde/praksisfonden) - Foundation of the National Health Security System (Fonden for Faglig Udvikling af Speciallægepraksis) (Denmark) (grant number A2387) (FEJ) (https://rltn.dk/fonde/praksisfondene/fonden-for-faglig-udvikling-i-speciallaegepraksis) - The Aase and Ejnar Danielsen's Foundation (grant number 18-10-0559) (SKH) (https://danielsensfond.dk) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly common disease worldwide with more than 1 million Danish citizens (~20%) suffering from OA in one or multiple joints [1,2]. A significant portion of these individuals receive treatment to reduce pain and sustain work ability, leading to estimated socioeconomic costs related to OA of approximately 11 billion Danish kroner (1,5 billion EUR) per year [2].

Knee-OA is the most common OA-diagnosis and it is estimated that 60.000 Danish people with symptoms of knee-OA seek medical treatment every year [3]. The incidence of knee-OA is related to overweight, inactivity, aging, earlier knee injury, muscle weakness and exposure to lifelong physical work [4–6]. The increasing number of elderly as well as the growing increase in inactive and overweight people implies that the occurrence of knee-OA may be expected to increase in forthcoming decades.

Representing the most widespread non-medical and non-surgical treatment option both internationally and in Denmark, knee-OA patients are typically offered a combination of patient education, weight loss counseling and physical exercise [3,7]. Physical exercise including conventional heavy-resistance strength training, functional training (exercises handling own body weight) and cardiovascular training all seem to improve knee pain, functional function, and quality of life in people with OA [8–13]. In Denmark, the current paradigm of standard rehabilitation (SR) is termed GLA:D (Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark), which consists of eight weeks of supervised multi-component training performed twice weekly [14–16]. The concept is a combination of education and supervised neuromuscular exercises (typically abbreviated NEMEX) delivered by GLA:D-certified physiotherapists, with the purpose to increase joint range of motion (ROM), improve lower limb muscle strength and increase muscular stability around the knee- and hip joints, respectively [14–16]. Components of NEMEX have previously been demonstrated to yield positive changes in pain perception [11,15–20], functional capacity [11,15] and quality of life [15,16]. Nonetheless, the effect of NEMEX on lower limb muscle mass and strength remains unexplored. Notably, deficits in maximal muscle strength are often a critical factor in people with knee-OA, typically demonstrating muscle weakness of 20–40% compared to healthy sex and age-matched individuals [21–23]. Prior systematic reviews have indicated that reduced knee extensor muscle strength is a significant risk factor for an increased incidence of knee-OA while also disposing for increased severity of symptoms and accelerated decline in functional performance [6,24]. As such, improving lower limb muscle strength, with a particular focus on maximal knee extensor strength, may be a key factor in relieving symptoms and improving function in people affected by knee-OA. Those OA-patients who can tolerate heavy strength training, typically experience a positive effect on maximal muscle strength and power [25,26]. Unfortunately however, a substantial proportion of OA patients are unable to tolerate this type of training due to excessive joint pain during and following exercise sessions [27].

In recent years, strength training combined with concurrent blood flow restriction, often termed occlusion training, has gained increasing acceptance and usage in athletes [28,29] as well as in different patient populations [30–38]. This type of training, often referred as BFR (Blood Flow Restricted) muscle exercise, typically is performed using low exercise loads (20–40% of MVC or 1RM) combined with restricted blood flow to the working muscles, the latter achieved by means of a pneumatic blood pressure cuff [39,40]. BFR training has been documented to result in significant improvements in muscle mass and muscle strength even with just a few weeks of intense daily training [41–44]. Moreover, of relevance especially in the clinical setting, BFR exercise has been reported to activate myogenic stem cells (satellite cells), which are involved in skeletal muscle regeneration and myofiber growth [42,45]. Notably, the improvements in muscle mass and strength with BFR training seem to be comparable or exceeding that achieved by conventional heavy-resistance strength training [31,34,37,38,41,46]. Recent data indicate that BFR exercise can have an acute pain-reducing effect [33,38] and result in greater strength gains and more pronounced reductions in pain with daily activities compared to heavy-resistance strength training in knee patients who experiences pain during training [30]. Based on these observations, BFR exercise may represent an attractive alternative training modality in patients with knee-OA.

The aim of the present study, therefore, is to investigate the effect of low-intensity BFR exercise on knee joint pain/function, muscle mass, and mechanical muscle function compared to SR in adults with knee-OA. We hypothesize that 12 weeks of BFR will lead to superior improvements in pain, muscle mass and mechanical muscle function compared to SR.

Materials and methods

The RCT study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT05437770) and any changes to the protocol will be reported at this site.

Study design

The present trial is designed as a two-armed, randomized, controlled trial following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines [47]. Assessment will be performed at baseline, after 8 weeks of training and at the end of the intervention period (12 weeks). Patient-reported questionnaires will be completed 24 weeks after the intervention period. Muscle biopsies (vastus lateralis) will be obtained from a subsample of 30 participants at baseline and again by the end of the intervention period (12 weeks). The overall study design is summarized in Fig 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295666.g001

Blinding and randomization

The primary assessor (BS) conducting the pre-, mid- and post-testing of physical function, mechanical muscle function, ultrasonography and all statistical analysis will be blinded to participants’ group allocation. In contrast, it is not possible for study participants and therapists conducting the SR and BFR-training to be blinded for group allocation.

After baseline assessment, participants will be randomized (1:1) to either SR or BFR-training (incl. education) using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) randomization system. Participants will be stratified for gender and BMI ≥ 27. Further, muscle biopsies will be included in the stratification for the volunteering subgroup of participants. Flowchart of participant allocation procedures is presented in Fig 2.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Flowchart of participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295666.g002

Study participants

Inclusion will take place via the Institute of Sportsmedicine Copenhagen (ISMC), and the Department of Physical and Occupational Therapy at Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen. Assessment for inclusion is made after referral from general practitioners or after consultation (elaborated below) with chief physician (FEJ) at ISMC. Recruitment will also include advertising through local newspapers, posters in public libraries and postings on social media, as well as invitations to attend lectures with information about the study.

Participants will be invited to an initial examination by our specialist in rheumatology (FEJ). At the consultation a standard clinical assessment will be performed, and the participant will be examined for meeting the explicit inclusion or exclusion criteria of the study. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed in Table 1. For participants meeting the inclusion criteria, a document containing information about the study procedures will be handed out. Following receival of all relevant oral and written information and meeting the objective X-ray criteria for OA, an informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Randomization procedures will take place following baseline testing, which will be performed at Bispebjerg Hospital by a blinded (to group allocation) assessor. Subsequently, training intervention procedures will be initiated in successive batches of participants. First participant was recruited 29.06.2022.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295666.t001

Intervention procedures

Standard rehabilitation protocol.

Each participant randomized to the SR group will be offered to participate in the current Danish standard rehabilitation (SR) protocol (termed GLA:D) for outpatients with symptomatic knee-OA [16]. Specifically, GLA:D comprise a registered 8-weeks structured treatment program for people with symptomatic knee and hip OA, which includes 16 supervised group-based exercise sessions including 2–3 patient education sessions delivered by certified health care practitioners, most commonly physiotherapists [16]. Two patient education sessions will be delivered by the treating clinician(s) and, when possible, a third session will be delivered by an expert patient. This protocol is considered a minimum intervention package and contains individualization of the exercise program and additional treatments as deemed by the clinician [14–17,48]. In the present trial, the SR program is extended for 4 additional weeks where the participants continue the supervised team group training at the PT clinic twice a week. Training exercises in the additional 4 weeks will involve the same exercises as performed during the first 8 weeks. Follow-up testing will be conducted after 8- and 12-weeks training, respectively (more details given below).

The training sessions consist of three parts, which are all supervised by a trained physiotherapist: warming up, a circuit program, and cooling down. The warm-up comprise ergometer cycling for 10 minutes. The circuit program comprises four exercise circles, including neuromuscular exercises with key elements: core stability/postural function; postural orientation; lower extremity muscle strength; and functional capacity exercises. The exercises are mainly performed in closed kinetic chains. Because muscle weakness of the lower extremity, particularly the quadriceps, is common in patients with OA, open kinetic chain exercises are also performed to improve muscle strength of the knee and hip muscles. Two to six exercises are performed in each exercise circle. Each exercise is performed 2–3 sets of 10–15 repetitions (reps), with rest corresponding to one set (~60 s), between each set and exercise. The exercises are performed both bilaterally and unilaterally involving both the non-affected and the affected leg, although main focus is on the affected leg. To allow for progression, three levels of difficulty are given for each exercise. Progression is made when an exercise is performed with good sensorimotor control and good quality of the performance (based on visual inspection by the physiotherapist) and with minimal exertion and control of the movement (perceived by the patient). The last part of the training program includes cool-down stretching exercises for the lower extremity muscles (10 minutes) [8,49].

BFR (Blood-Flow Restricted) exercise protocol.

Participants randomized to BFR resistance exercise will attend 24 supervised BFR sessions (two times a week for 12 weeks) delivered by experienced clinical BFR instructors at Bispebjerg Hospital. Each BFR session will consist of warm-up on an ergometer bike (10 min). This is followed by two different unilateral lower limb resistance exercises: (1) leg press and (2) knee extension performed in standard strength training machines (TechnoGym). Each exercise will be performed with the knee-OA diagnosed leg first followed by the contra-lateral leg, comprising four sets with a 30 second rest in between. 30 reps in the first set; 15 reps in second and third sets; and reps performed until exhaustion in the fourth set. If the participant can perform more than 15 reps in the fourth set, the exercise load will be increased 5% in the subsequent training session [50]. Participants will be instructed to perform both the eccentric and concentric contraction phases using a 2-s pace duration. The fourth set will be performed to the point of exhaustion defined as being unable to complete the final concentric contraction phase in 2 seconds. During the 30-s rest period in between sets, participants will rest in a self-chosen body position while maintaining the cuff-pressure. Between exercises (1) and (2), participants will receive a 5 min rest period with the cuff released [51]. Cuff pressure will be released immediately after completion of the final exercise round.

The occlusion pressure during both exercises will be set at 60% of the individual arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) in the first two training sessions, and increased to 70% AOP in the subsequent two sessions, to reach 80% AOP from the fifth training session, where it will remain during all subsequent training sessions [40,52–55]. The stepwise increments in cuff-pressure are chosen to habituate participants to the 80% AOP pressure. If a participant is unable to perform training at 80% of AOP due to intolerable pain, the cuff-pressure will be decreased to 70% of AOP. Individual AOP will be determined using a pneumatic, conically shaped, 12-cm wide, pneumatic cuff (Occlude Aps, Denmark) attached to the participant’s proximal thigh area on the knee-OA diagnosed side, and subsequently applied to the proximal thigh of the contralateral side. While sitting on an examination table with the ankle and 1/3 of the lower limb off the table, a vascular Doppler probe (EDAN Instruments, China) will be placed posterior to the medial malleolus over the posterior tibial artery to capture the auscultatory pulse. To determine the cuff pressure (mmHg) needed for total blood flow occlusion (arterial occlusion pressure: AOP), the cuff will gradually be inflated in successive 20-mmHg steps until reaching the pressure where the auscultatory pulse is interrupted (i.e., AOP). The first time the auscultatory pulse is interrupted, the examiner releases pressure from the cuff until the auscultatory pulse is present again. When the auscultatory pulse reappears, the cuff is inflated until AOP is identified again. If the second AOP is identical to the first, it will be defined as the AOP for that specific participant [51]. In case of more than 10-mmHg difference between the first and second measurements, a third will be conducted to determine AOP.

Initial load intensity during the BFR exercises will be 30% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in all exercises and for both limbs [53–55]. The initial training load will be estimated based on unilateral sub-maximal testing (5-10RM) for the knee-OA diagnosed leg first only prior to the first training session [56,57]. 1RM load intensity will be estimated from 5-10RM [57], and will be re-assessed at weeks 5 and 9 to make sure that 30% 1RM load intensity is adjusted to account for the progressive increase in 1RM strength throughout the intervention period.

Patient education.

Patient education will consist of one to two lecture sessions (approximate total duration: 2 hours) given by a certified physiotherapist familiar to SR. The sessions intend to provide the patient with knowledge of OA and treatment of OA with a particular focus on exercise. Further, the beneficial effects of exercise on symptoms and general health will be discussed, and self-help advice will be offered. Finally, the patient education sessions will focus on engaging the patients actively to share experiences with each other [16].

Both intervention groups will attend the patient education sessions. Participants in the SR group will attend the education session at the specific physiotherapy clinic at which they train. Participants in the BFR group will attend the session at Bispebjerg Hospital performed by internal staff.

Outcome variables

All study outcome variables are summarized in Table 2. Outcome assessment will be performed at baseline (prior to randomization and before intervention onset), and again after 8 weeks of training (the normal duration of SR) and 12 weeks of training, respectively. In addition, patient-reported questionnaires will be completed 24 weeks after the intervention period. One assessor (BS) blinded to group allocation will perform all baseline and follow-up testing. Prior to baseline testing, the assessor will be thoroughly trained in performing the tests according to the specific procedures involved in each test modality (elaborated below). Further, the assessor will be trained in how to communicate with the participants at follow-up test sessions to avoid unblinding due to miscommunication. Also, all cases where blinding is being broken will be registered.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Summary of outcome variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295666.t002

The instructors in charge of the BFR resistance exercise procedures are therapists who are trained in performing this type of exercise in healthy subjects as well as in selected patient groups incl. OA patients. Prior to all follow-up test sessions, the physiotherapists and instructors in charge of both SR, and BFR will carefully remind the participants not to reveal their group allocation to the assessor at any point during the post-testing activities.

Primary outcome

Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score:

The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is a patient-administered knee-specific questionnaire and is comprised of five subscales: Pain; Symptoms; Activities of daily living; Sport and Recreation, and Knee-Related Quality of Life. Each item is scored from 0 to 4 [58–61]. Primary outcome variable will be the between-group difference (0 to 12 weeks) in KOOS-Pain. KOOS-Pain consists of 9 questions regarding the difficulties the patient experience with physical activity due to their knee problems and is scored on a scale, ranging from zero (no problems) to four (extreme problems) for each question [59,60]. A normalized score for the entire subscale will be calculated and reported, ranging from zero (extreme symptoms) to 100 (no symptoms) [59,60]. Acceptable reliability and construct validity data have previously been reported for this variable [59].

Secondary outcomes

The remaining four KOOS subscales (symptoms, activities of daily living, sport and recreation, and knee-related quality of life) also will be assessed, using the same approach as for the primary outcome variable.

Oxford Knee Score:

The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) is a patient-reported questionnaire comprising 12 questions about selected activities of daily living that reflects the patient’s subjective assessment of their knee-related health status and benefits of treatment [58,62]. OKS has been developed and validated specifically to assess knee joint function and pain after total knee replacement and knee-OA [58,62].

Secondary outcomes related to functional performance

30-second Chair Stand Test:

The 30-s chair stand test (30-s CST) is used to assess functional leg extensor strength, power and endurance. The 30-s CST will be performed using a rigid chair (seat height: 43–44 cm). The 30-s CST measures the number of sit-to-stand repetitions completed within 30-s. Further, the 30-s test outcome will be converted to mean leg extensor power output using algorithms recently validated across the adult age span [63,64]. The 30-s CST is a valid and sensitive measure of lower-extremity sit-to-stand function with good-to-excellent intra- and interobserver reliability [65–68].

4x10 m Fast-paced Walk Test:

The 40-m fast-paced Walk test (40m-FWT) is a test of walking speed over short distances and changing direction during walking. It measures the total time it takes to walk 4 * 10 m excluding turns (m/s) [65,68]. Participants will be instructed to walk as quickly and as safely as possible without running to a visible mark 10 meters away, return and repeat for a total distance of 40 m [65,68]. Prior to the test, one practice trial will be provided to check understanding. The 40m-FWT is considered a valid and sensitive measure for assessing short distance maximum walking speed with excellent reliability [68].

Stair Climb Test:

The measurement of timed stair-climb performance has been employed extensively in the clinic and literature to measure efficacy of treatment in knee-OA patients [63]. The stair-climb test (SCT) is a test of lower body strength and balance [65,69–72]. This is a function that patients with lower limb OA find particularly painful and the ability to climb stairs has been strongly correlated with leg extensor power and joint flexibility [70].

The SCT involves ascending and descending 10 stairs measuring 18 cm rise / 92 cm width. Each participant is asked to ascend/descend the stairs at their maximal pace (without resting) [72]. The total time of stair ascend and descend is recorded electronically, with each participant performing a single trial after the familiarization trial. Use of a walking aid or the handrail will be noted [70,71].

Secondary outcomes related to mechanical muscle function

Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction strength and Rate of Force Development:

Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction strength (MVIC) will be obtained in an isokinetic dynamometer (KinCom; Kinetic Communicator, Chattecx, Chattanooga, TN) as the maximal isometric knee extensor torque generated at 70° knee joint angle (0° = full extension) [73–75]. The reliability and validity of this setup have been described elsewhere [76]. Briefly, participants are seated 10° reclined and firmly strapped at the proximal part of the thigh. The axis of rotation of the dynamometer lever arm is visually aligned to the axis of the lateral femur condyle of the subject, and the lower leg is attached to the lever arm of the dynamometer just above the medial malleolus. Individual settings of the seat, backrest, dynamometer head, and lever arm length will be registered, so identical positioning can be achieved during follow-up testing. To correct for the effect of gravity on the recorded knee extensor torque, the passive mass (flexor torque) of the lower leg will be measured in the dynamometer at a knee joint angle of 45° [73]. Maximal isometric quadriceps contractions will be performed during static knee extension at a knee joint angle of 70° (0° = full knee extension) as described previously [74]. After 10-min of bicycle warmup followed by a number of submaximal preconditioning trials with increasing percentage of maximal contraction (~50–90% of maximal contraction), each participant performs three to four maximal contractions of the knee extensors. Participants are carefully instructed to contract “as fast and forcefully as possible” and instructed during testing to have their arms crossed over the chest to avoid compensation. On-line visual feedback of the instantaneous dynamometer force is provided to the participants on a computer screen. Trials with an initial countermovement (identified by a visible drop in the force signal) will be always disqualified, and a new trial will be performed. The trial with the highest maximal voluntary knee extensor peak torque is selected for further analyses [75].

Contractile RFD will be calculated as the average slope of the rising phase of the torque-time curve (i.e. RFD = ΔTorque/ΔTime) at 30, 50, 100, and 200 ms relative to onset of contraction (t = 0). Onset of contraction is defined as the instant where force increase 3.5 Nm above the rising baseline level, corresponding to ~2% of the peak isometric torque. Contractile impulse is measured as the area under the force-time curve (∫force dt) in the same time intervals [75]. Relative RFD is determined as the slope of the moment-time curve normalized relative to peak isometric torque, MVIC [73,75,77]. MVIC and RFD testing will be conducted on the symptomatic leg only.

Muscle Cross-Sectional Area:

A portable B-mode ultrasound (US) device (GE LOGIQTM E10, GE Healthcare, USA) with linear-array probe (variable frequency band 4.2–13.0 MHz) will be used for measurements of muscle cross-sectional area (CSA). GE Logiq E10 LogicViewTM software is used to generate panoramic axial CSA images from the quadriceps muscle (rectus femoris and vastus lateralis) [78,79].

Participants will be positioned supine with their legs extended and relaxed for 10 min to restore the normal flow of body fluids [80]. Orientated in the axial-plane, the US probe is positioned perpendicularly, and a water-based gel is used to promote acoustic contact between the skin and the probe [80]. The probe is moved manually with a slow and continuous movement from the medial to the lateral part of quadriceps along a marked line on the skin [78]. Great care will be taken to be consistent in applying minimal pressure from the US probe to the skin during all scannings to avoid compression (deformation) of the underlying muscle tissue. The anatomical site for all measurements will be at 50% of the distance between the lateral condyle and greater trochanter of the femur [83]. Transparency film will be used to map the skin to ensure that CSA measurements are matched between test-days [79]. After US scanning, CSA images will be reviewed from the monitor to ensure the preliminary quality of the images. Subsequently, three ultrasound panoramic CSA images will be obtained for later analysis. All images will be saved and exported for analyses in ImageJ software (Version 1.48v, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). Quadriceps ultrasound imaging has previously been established as a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing thigh muscle size (CSA) and quality [78,79,81–85].

Leg extensor power:

Maximal leg extensor muscle power (LEP) will be assessed using the leg extensor power-rig (University of Nottingham Medical School, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom) [11,86]. Participants will be seated in the power-rig chair and after 2–3 warm-up trials instructed to press (unilaterally) as hard and fast as possible onto a footplate connected to an instrumented flywheel system [87]. Visual feedback of the instantaneous power-time curve is provided on a computer screen after each trial and the participant will perform successive trials (30-s pause) until unable to increase mean power any further. The trial with highest power is selected for further analysis. The power output normalized to kilo body mass (Watt/kg) is calculated for the symptomatic leg and used for within-group and between-group analyses [11].

Muscle biopsy sampling:

Muscle biopsies will be obtained from the knee extensors (vastus lateralis: VL) for determination of selected myocellular components (fiber type composition and area, vascularization, satellite cell content, myonuclei number) [42,88,89]. In brief, muscle biopsies will be obtained (100–150 mg) from 30 volunteering participants (15 participants from each intervention group). The biopsies will be obtained unilaterally from the middle portion of the vastus lateralis muscle using the percutaneous needle biopsy technique of Bergström [90–92]. Biopsies will be performed by experienced orthopaedic surgeons (chief physicians) trained in performing the needle muscle biopsy technique at Bispebjerg Hospital.

Pressure Pain Threshold:

The Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) will be assessed using a handheld pain algometer (Algometer Type II; Somedic AB, Sollentuna, Sweden) using a 1 cm2 probe. The participant is placed in a sitting position with the knees at 90° flexion [93,94]. The test instructor locates (palpation) the most painful area (MPA) in the medial knee joint line and two reference points. The muscle belly of the tibialis anterior is used as a reference point and located 3 cm distally and 2 cm laterally from the tuberositas tibia, and the muscle belly of extensor carpi radialis 3 cm distally from lateral epicondyle of the humerus. The test sides are then marked on a sheet picturing the knee and with a removable pen in order to replicate test sides. At post-testing sessions (week 8 and 12) both the MPA from the first test session and the MPA on the day of post-testing are being located and tested. The probe is placed perpendicular to the skin at the marked sides and pressure is applied orthogonally to the skin at a standardized and constant rate of application (30 KPa/s) [94]. The participant is provided with a hand-held button and will be instructed to press the button at the first instance the sensation change from pressure to pain. When the participant presses the button, the algometer will record the applied pressure (expressed in KPa), which will be recorded as the PPT. The mean of two consecutive test scores will be calculated and recorded as the PPT score for each test side with a 1-minut rest period between tests [93]. The participant will be assessed at rest unilaterally in both limbs, where PPT on the knee-OA diagnosed leg will be measured first. In order to prevent adverse effects (e.g., soft tissue damage) maximum pressure will never exceed 1000 KPa. The pain algometer has proven valid and reliable in patients suffering from knee OA [95–98].

1RM leg press strength:

1RM leg press strength will be estimated from a 5-10RM leg press test [57]. Participants will perform three warm-up sets at submaximal loads (~25–50% 1RM). The first and second warm-up sets consist of 12 repetitions, and the third warm-up set consists of eight repetitions. After warm-up, loads will be increased to determine 5-10RM [56]. 1RM strength will be estimated from the 5-10RM values using correlational equations reported elsewhere [56,57]. 1RM strength testing will only be performed by participants in the BFR group to estimate the initial training load.

1RM knee extensor strength:

1RM knee extensor strength will be estimated as described above for the 1RM leg press test [56,57].

Ethical aspects and dissemination

The study is approved by the Committees on Health Research Ethics in Region Hovedstaden (H-19079135). The study will be carried out in accordance with international, standardized research ethics considerations and has been approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (P-2019-814).

All included experimental methods have previously been used at Bispebjerg Hospital (Institute of Sports Medicine and Geriatric Research Unit), Herlev Hospital (Geriatric Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine) and University of Southern Denmark (Research Unit of Muscle Physiology and Biomechanics, Department of Sport and Biomechanics).

There is no indications in the literature that patients with knee-OA are unable to tolerate or complete 12 weeks of BFR-training [25,26], and therefore it was deemed that the low exercise loads employed with the present BFR resistance training protocol coupled with the controlled movements performed in the exercise machines should be tolerable to the present group of OA patients. In support of this notion, OA patients typically demonstrate a high training compliance to low-load BFR resistance training [25,38].

Prior to study inclusion, all participants will provide written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All data and information collected in the trial will be treated blinded and encrypted to the researchers and staff connected with the trial.

Patient and public involvement.

A pilot trial was performed before developing this clinical trial to determine the efficacy and feasibility of BFR in a representative adult suffering from bilateral symptomatic knee-OA. The feedback from the participant on the specific training protocol regarding training intensity, frequency and duration was useful for optimizing the BFR exercise protocol used in the present trial.

Data management

All data from the patient-reported outcome measures (KOOS, OKS, Tegner score), functional performance tests and mechanical muscle function tests will be entered into RedCap by the blinded assessor. All patient data will be anonymised by assigning study numbers (FP01, FP02…) to each patient. The raw data will be stored for five years after completion of the trial with restricted access to the data. After publication of the trial, a fully anonymised patient-level dataset and corresponding statistical

description will be made publicly available if required by the scientific journal, in which the results are published.

Statistical considerations

Sample size.

The estimated number of participants in the study are based on the primary outcome variable, KOOS-Pain subscale [58], with the assumption that a between-group change of 10 points is considered clinically relevant [58,60] assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 15 points [11,60]. To achieve a statistical power of 80% with a significance level of 0.05 and an expected between-group change of 10-points following 12 weeks training (primary endpoint) using a two-sample pooled t test required 37 participants in each group. To compensate for potential dropouts, a total of 90 participants are planned to be included in the study randomly assigned to the two intervention groups.

Statistical analysis.

The change in the primary outcome (KOOS-Pain) from baseline to primary endpoint (12 weeks) will be calculated for both groups, and mixed linear model analysis with an autoregressive covariance structure will be used to examine if there is a systematic difference between the two intervention groups. Both intention-to-treat analysis (i.e., including all randomized participants independent of departures from allocation treatment, compliance and/or withdrawals) and per-protocol analysis (participation in ≥80% of all scheduled training sessions) will be conducted.

All outcome parameters (primary, secondary) will be analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance model to analyze between-group mean changes. The model includes changes from baseline to 8- and 12-weeks. Pre-to-post intervention comparisons will be analyzed using a mixed linear model approach. Explorative analysis will also be conducted. The primary outcome will be correlated to the various secondary outcomes using multiple linear regression analyses. The level of statistical significance will be set to p<0.05 (two-tailed testing). All statistical analyses will be performed in a blinded fashion SPSS (Version 22, IBM SPSS Statistics).

Discussion

To our best knowledge, this is the first clinical trial to investigate the effect of blood-flow restricted BFR strength training vs. standard rehabilitation (SR) on pain intensity, functional capacity, and mechanical lower limb muscle function in adults with knee OA. In Denmark, most hip- and knee OA patients are referred from their physician to physiotherapy-based SR involving participation in the GLA:D program. The GLA:D program is a Danish initiative started in 2013 that aims at facilitating evidence-based care of patients with OA, with key components consisting of patient education and neuromuscular exercise therapy delivered by GLA:D certified physiotherapists [16,99]. The GLA:D program is currently available for patients in Denmark, Canada, Australia, China, and Switzerland [14]. Previous studies have investigated the effects of SR on musculoskeletal pain and functional performance in OA patients [14,16,18,20]. Two studies have investigated the effect of conventional (i.e. free-flow) low-load strength training with SR [11,19] and a single study has compared SR to intra-articular saline injections [17]. Interestingly, the addition of low-load conventional strength training to SR appeared to provide no additional benefits on self-reported physical function or mechanical muscle function, except for an improved stair climb performance and reduced pain sensitization [11,19]. Further, comparing SR to intra-articular saline injections revealed comparable improvements in various symptomatic and functional outcome measures [17]. However, to our best knowledge, no previous study has examined the effect of low-load BFR training compared to SR on lower limb mechanical muscle function, self-reported physical function, and objective functional performance in patients with lower limb (knee) OA.

Despite that quadriceps muscle weakness is associated with increased risk of early onset and accelerated progression of knee-OA [4,6,22,100], the effects of SR on maximal quadriceps muscle strength have not yet been examined. Only a single study seems to have investigated the effect of SR intervention on mechanical lower limb muscle function [11]. In that study, half of the participants were randomized to conventional low-load strength training approximately 10 min after a preceding SR session twice weekly for 12 weeks. Maximal leg extensor power was assessed using a Nottingham Power-Rig and remained unchanged both with SR alone and when combined with conventional low-load resistance training [11].

The effect of low-intensity BFR training has been investigated in various patient groups, including knee OA patients [25,26,101]. A systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effect of low-intensity BFR training to low-intensity (LIRT), moderate-intensity (MIRT) and high-intensity (HIRT) conventional (i.e. free-flow) resistance training on maximal muscle strength, muscle mass and functional performance in patients with knee OA [37]. No differences were observed between BFR, MIRT and HIRT on gains in muscle strength and functional performance. In addition, BFR training and HIRT revealed similar increases in muscle mass, which were not observed with LIRT and MIRT. Notably also, BFR training appears to yield greater gains in muscle strength compared to LIRT in OA patients [37]. The authors concluded that low-intensity BFR training represents a promising rehabilitation strategy, which is a viable alternative or adjunct to resistance training that includes higher loading intensities, exceeding 60% 1RM [37]. However, to date only few BFR studies have been conducted in knee OA patients involving a low total number of participants performing BFR training [25,26,101]. Thus, more studies are needed to clarify the effect of low-intensity BFR training on mechanical lower limb muscle function and functional performance in patients with OA.

Consequently, the present randomized assessor-blinded controlled trial was designed to examine the effect of low-intensity BFR training versus SR on mechanical muscle function, self-reported physical function, and objective measures of functional performance in men and women with radiographically diagnosed knee OA.

References

  1. 1. Jensen H, Davidsen M, Ekholm O, Christensen A. Danskernes Sundhed—Den Nationale Sundhedsprofil 2021. Sundhedsstyrelsen. 2022.
  2. 2. Johnsen N, Kock M, Davidsen M, Juel K. De samfundsmæssige omkostninger ved artrose. Statens Institut for Folkesundhed. 2014.
  3. 3. Sundhedsstyrelsen. Knæartrose—Nationale kliniske retningslinjer og faglige visitationsretningslinjer. 2012.
  4. 4. Ashkavand Z, Malekinejad H, Vishwanath BS. The pathophysiology of osteoarthritis. Journal of Pharmacy Research. 2013;7(1):132–8.
  5. 5. Silverwood V, Blagojevic-Bucknall M, Jinks C, Jordan JL, Protheroe J, Jordan KP. Current evidence on risk factors for knee osteoarthritis in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. 2015;23(4):507–15. pmid:25447976
  6. 6. Øiestad BE, Juhl CB, Eitzen I, Thorlund JB. Knee extensor muscle weakness is a risk factor for development of knee osteoarthritis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. 2015;23(2):171–7. pmid:25450853
  7. 7. McAlindon TE, Bannuru RR, Sullivan MC, Arden NK, Berenbaum F, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. 2014;22(3):363–88. pmid:24462672
  8. 8. Ageberg E, Link A, Roos EM. Feasibility of neuromuscular training in patients with severe hip or knee OA: the individualized goal-based NEMEX-TJR training program. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2010;11:126. pmid:20565735
  9. 9. Dantas LO, Salvini TF, McAlindon TE. Knee osteoarthritis: key treatments and implications for physical therapy. Braz J Phys Ther. 2021;25(2):135–46. pmid:33262080
  10. 10. Fransen M, McConnell S, Harmer AR, Van der Esch M, Simic M, Bennell KL. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee: A Cochrane Systematic Review. Br J Sports Med. 2015;1:1554–7. pmid:26405113
  11. 11. Holm PM, Schrøder HM, Wernbom M, Skou ST. Low-dose strength training in addition to neuromuscular exercise and education in patients with knee osteoarthritis in secondary care—a randomized controlled trial. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. 2020;28(6):744–54. pmid:32179197
  12. 12. Skou ST, Rasmussen S, Laursen MB, Rathleff MS, Arendt-Nielsen L, Simonsen O, et al. The efficacy of 12 weeks non-surgical treatment for patients not eligible for total knee replacement: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23(9):1465–75.
  13. 13. Villadsen A, Overgaard S, Holsgaard-Larsen A, Christensen R, Roos EM. Immediate efficacy of neuromuscular exercise in patients with severe osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. The Journal of rheumatology. 2014;41(7):1385–94. pmid:24931956
  14. 14. Roos EM, Grønne DT, Skou ST, Zywiel MG, McGlasson R, Barton CJ, et al. Immediate outcomes following the GLA:D® program in Denmark, Canada and Australia. A longitudinal analysis including 28,370 patients with symptomatic knee or hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2021;29(4):502–6.
  15. 15. Skou ST, Odgaard A, Rasmussen JO, Roos EM. Group education and exercise is feasible in knee and hip osteoarthritis. Danish medical journal. 2012;59(12):A4554. pmid:23290290
  16. 16. Skou ST, Roos EM. Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D™): evidence-based education and supervised neuromuscular exercise delivered by certified physiotherapists nationwide. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2017;18(1):72.
  17. 17. Bandak E, Christensen R, Overgaard A, Kristensen LE, Ellegaard K, Guldberg-Møller J, et al. Exercise and education versus saline injections for knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021. pmid:34844929
  18. 18. Davis AM, Kennedy D, Wong R, Robarts S, Skou ST, McGlasson R, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and implementation of Good Life with osteoarthritis in Denmark (GLA:D™): group education and exercise for hip and knee osteoarthritis is feasible in Canada. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. 2018;26(2):211–9.
  19. 19. Holm PM, Petersen KK, Wernbom M, Schrøder HM, Arendt-Nielsen L, Skou ST. Strength training in addition to neuromuscular exercise and education in individuals with knee osteoarthritis-the effects on pain and sensitization. Eur J Pain. 2021;25(9):1898–911. pmid:33991370
  20. 20. Skou ST, Bricca A, Roos EM. The impact of physical activity level on the short- and long-term pain relief from supervised exercise therapy and education: a study of 12,796 Danish patients with knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. 2018;26(11):1474–8. pmid:30076884
  21. 21. Bennell KL, Hunt MA, Wrigley TV, Lim BW, Hinman RS. Role of muscle in the genesis and management of knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America. 2008;34(3):731–54. pmid:18687280
  22. 22. Rodriguez-Lopez C, Beckwée D, Luyten FP, Van Assche D, Van Roie E. Reduced knee extensor torque production at low to moderate velocities in postmenopausal women with knee osteoarthritis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021;31(11):2144–55. pmid:34409660
  23. 23. Skoffer B, Dalgas U, Mechlenburg I, Soballe K, Maribo T. Functional performance is associated with both knee extensor and flexor muscle strength in patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty: A cross-sectional study. Journal of rehabilitation medicine. 2015;47(5):454–9. pmid:25678417
  24. 24. Culvenor AG, Ruhdorfer A, Juhl C, Eckstein F, Øiestad BE. Knee Extensor Strength and Risk of Structural, Symptomatic, and Functional Decline in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arthritis care & research. 2017;69(5):649–58. pmid:27563843
  25. 25. Bryk FF, Dos Reis AC, Fingerhut D, Araujo T, Schutzer M, Cury Rde P, et al. Exercises with partial vascular occlusion in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial. Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy. 2016;24(5):1580–6. pmid:26971109
  26. 26. Ferraz RB, Gualano B, Rodrigues R, Kurimori CO, Fuller R, Lima FR, et al. Benefits of Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction in Knee Osteoarthritis. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2018;50(5):897–905. pmid:29266093
  27. 27. Jan MH, Lin JJ, Liau JJ, Lin YF, Lin DH. Investigation of clinical effects of high- and low-resistance training for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Physical therapy. 2008;88(4):427–36. pmid:18218827
  28. 28. Manimmanakorn A, Hamlin MJ, Ross JJ, Taylor R, Manimmanakorn N. Effects of low-load resistance training combined with blood flow restriction or hypoxia on muscle function and performance in netball athletes. Journal of science and medicine in sport. 2013;16(4):337–42. pmid:22999393
  29. 29. Scott BR, Loenneke JP, Slattery KM, Dascombe BJ. Blood flow restricted exercise for athletes: A review of available evidence. Journal of science and medicine in sport. 2016;19(5):360–7. pmid:26118847
  30. 30. Giles L, Webster KE, McClelland J, Cook JL. Quadriceps strengthening with and without blood flow restriction in the treatment of patellofemoral pain: a double-blind randomised trial. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(23):1688–94. pmid:28500081
  31. 31. Grønfeldt BM, Lindberg Nielsen J, Mieritz RM, Lund H, Aagaard P. Effect of blood-flow restricted vs heavy-load strength training on muscle strength: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020;30(5):837–48. pmid:32031709
  32. 32. Hughes L, Paton B, Rosenblatt B, Gissane C, Patterson SD. Blood flow restriction training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(13):1003–11. pmid:28259850
  33. 33. Hughes L, Patterson SD. The effect of blood flow restriction exercise on exercise-induced hypoalgesia and endogenous opioid and endocannabinoid mechanisms of pain modulation. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md: 1985). 2020;128(4):914–24. pmid:32105522
  34. 34. Lixandrão ME, Ugrinowitsch C, Berton R, Vechin FC, Conceição MS, Damas F, et al. Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load Resistance Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ). 2018;48(2):361–78. pmid:29043659
  35. 35. Takada S, Okita K, Suga T, Omokawa M, Kadoguchi T, Sato T, et al. Low-intensity exercise can increase muscle mass and strength proportionally to enhanced metabolic stress under ischemic conditions. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md: 1985). 2012;113(2):199–205. pmid:22628373
  36. 36. Yasuda T, Fukumura K, Fukuda T, Uchida Y, Iida H, Meguro M, et al. Muscle size and arterial stiffness after blood flow-restricted low-intensity resistance training in older adults. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24(5):799–806. pmid:23730848
  37. 37. Dos Santos LP, Santo R, Ramis TR, Portes JKS, Chakr R, Xavier RM. The effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction on muscle strength, muscle hypertrophy and functionality in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review with meta-analysis. PloS one. 2021;16(11):e0259574. pmid:34758045
  38. 38. Rodrigues R, Ferraz RB, Kurimori CO, Guedes LK, Lima FR, de Sá-Pinto AL, et al. Low-Load Resistance Training With Blood-Flow Restriction in Relation to Muscle Function, Mass, and Functionality in Women With Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis care & research. 2020;72(6):787–97. pmid:31033228
  39. 39. Manini TM, Clark BC. Blood flow restricted exercise and skeletal muscle health. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2009;37(2):78–85. pmid:19305199
  40. 40. Patterson SD, Hughes L, Warmington S, Burr J, Scott BR, Owens J, et al. Blood Flow Restriction Exercise: Considerations of Methodology, Application, and Safety. Front Physiol. 2019;10(533).
  41. 41. Centner C, Wiegel P, Gollhofer A, König D. Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy in Older Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ). 2019;49(1):95–108.
  42. 42. Nielsen JL, Aagaard P, Bech RD, Nygaard T, Hvid LG, Wernbom M, et al. Proliferation of myogenic stem cells in human skeletal muscle in response to low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction. The Journal of physiology. 2012;590(17):4351–61. pmid:22802591
  43. 43. Ramos-Campo DJ, Scott BR, Alcaraz PE, Rubio-Arias JA. The efficacy of resistance training in hypoxia to enhance strength and muscle growth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European journal of sport science. 2018;18(1):92–103. pmid:29045191
  44. 44. Vissing K, Groennebaek T, Wernbom M, Aagaard P, Raastad T. Myocellular Adaptations to Low-Load Blood Flow Restricted Resistance Training. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2020;48(4):180–7. pmid:32658044
  45. 45. Jakobsgaard JE, Christiansen M, Sieljacks P, Wang J, Groennebaek T, de Paoli F, et al. Impact of blood flow-restricted bodyweight exercise on skeletal muscle adaptations. Clinical physiology and functional imaging. 2018. pmid:29446524
  46. 46. Kubo K, Komuro T, Ishiguro N, Tsunoda N, Sato Y, Ishii N, et al. Effects of low-load resistance training with vascular occlusion on the mechanical properties of muscle and tendon. J Appl Biomech. 2006;22(2):112–9. pmid:16871002
  47. 47. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. International journal of surgery (London, England). 2012;10(1):28–55. pmid:22036893
  48. 48. Grønne DT, Roos EM, Ibsen R, Kjellberg J, Skou ST. Cost-effectiveness of an 8-week supervised education and exercise therapy programme for knee and hip osteoarthritis: a pre–post analysis of 16 255 patients participating in Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D). BMJ Open. 2021;11(12):e049541.
  49. 49. Ageberg E, Roos EM. Neuromuscular exercise as treatment of degenerative knee disease. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2015;43(1):14–22. pmid:25390299
  50. 50. Jørgensen AN, Aagaard P, Nielsen JL, Frandsen U, Diederichsen LP. Effects of blood-flow-restricted resistance training on muscle function in a 74-year-old male with sporadic inclusion body myositis: a case report. Clinical physiology and functional imaging. 2016;36(6):504–9. pmid:26095885
  51. 51. Jørgensen SL, Bohn MB, Aagaard P, Mechlenburg I. Efficacy of low-load blood flow restricted resistance EXercise in patients with Knee osteoarthritis scheduled for total knee replacement (EXKnee): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e034376. pmid:33004382
  52. 52. Clarkson MJ, May AK, Warmington SA. Is there rationale for the cuff pressures prescribed for blood flow restriction exercise? A systematic review. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020;30(8):1318–36. pmid:32279391
  53. 53. Næss T. Determining the optimal blood flow restriction protocol for maximising muscle hypertrophy and strength, pressure and cuff width: A mini-review. J Hum Sport Exerc. 2020;16.
  54. 54. Patterson SD, Hughes L, Head P, Warmington S, Brandner C. Blood flow restriction training: a novel approach to augment clinical rehabilitation: how to do it. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(23):1648–9. pmid:28642225
  55. 55. Vanwye WR, Weatherholt AM, Mikesky AE. Blood Flow Restriction Training: Implementation into Clinical Practice. Int J Exerc Sci. 2017;10(5):649–54. pmid:28966705
  56. 56. Hansen H. RM-testmanual. Danish Physiotherapy Society. 2012;1:1–2.
  57. 57. Reynolds JM, Gordon TJ, Robergs RA. Prediction of one repetition maximum strength from multiple repetition maximum testing and anthropometry. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2006;20(3):584–92. pmid:16937972
  58. 58. Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis care & research. 2011;63 Suppl 11:S208–28.
  59. 59. Collins NJ, Prinsen CAC, Christensen R, Bartels EM, Terwee CB, Roos EM. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. 2016;24(8):1317–29. pmid:27012756
  60. 60. Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2003;1:64. pmid:14613558
  61. 61. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 1998;28(2):88–96. pmid:9699158
  62. 62. Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray DW, Carr AJ, et al. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(1):73–9. pmid:25441700
  63. 63. Alcazar J, Aagaard P, Haddock B, Kamper RS, Hansen SK, Prescott E, et al. Assessment of functional sit-to-stand muscle power: Cross-sectional trajectories across the lifespan. Experimental gerontology. 2021;152:111448. pmid:34118352
  64. 64. Alcazar J, Alegre LM, Van Roie E, Magalhães JP, Nielsen BR, González-Gross M, et al. Relative sit-to-stand power: aging trajectories, functionally relevant cut-off points, and normative data in a large European cohort. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2021;12(4):921–32. pmid:34216098
  65. 65. Dobson F, Hinman RS, Roos EM, Abbott JH, Stratford P, Davis AM, et al. OARSI recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. 2013;21(8):1042–52. pmid:23680877
  66. 66. Gill S, McBurney H. Reliability of performance-based measures in people awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee. Physiother Res Int. 2008;13(3):141–52. pmid:18697226
  67. 67. Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 1999;70(2):113–9. pmid:10380242
  68. 68. Wright AA, Cook CE, Baxter GD, Dockerty JD, Abbott JH. A comparison of 3 methodological approaches to defining major clinically important improvement of 4 performance measures in patients with hip osteoarthritis. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 2011;41(5):319–27. pmid:21335930
  69. 69. Bennell K, Dobson F, Hinman R. Measures of physical performance assessments: Self-Paced Walk Test (SPWT), Stair Climb Test (SCT), Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Chair Stand Test (CST), Timed Up & Go (TUG), Sock Test, Lift and Carry Test (LCT), and Car Task. Arthritis care & research. 2011;63 Suppl 11:S350–70.
  70. 70. Coleman G, Dobson F, Hinman RS, Bennell K, White DK. Measures of Physical Performance. Arthritis care & research. 2020;72 Suppl 10:452–85. pmid:33091270
  71. 71. Davey R, Edwards S, Cochrane T. Test–retest Reliability of Lower Extremity Functional and Self-reported Measures in Elderly with Osteoarthritis. Advances in Physiotherapy. 2003;5:155–60.
  72. 72. Kennedy DM, Stratford PW, Wessel J, Gollish JD, Penney D. Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: a longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2005;6(1):3.
  73. 73. Suetta C, Aagaard P, Rosted A, Jakobsen AK, Duus B, Kjaer M, et al. Training-induced changes in muscle CSA, muscle strength, EMG, and rate of force development in elderly subjects after long-term unilateral disuse. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md: 1985). 2004;97(5):1954–61. pmid:15247162
  74. 74. Aagaard P, Andersen JL, Dyhre-Poulsen P, Leffers AM, Wagner A, Magnusson SP, et al. A mechanism for increased contractile strength of human pennate muscle in response to strength training: changes in muscle architecture. The Journal of physiology. 2001;534(Pt. 2):613–23. pmid:11454977
  75. 75. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre-Poulsen P. Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md: 1985). 2002;93(4):1318–26. pmid:12235031
  76. 76. Farrell M, Richards JG. Analysis of the reliability and validity of the kinetic communicator exercise device. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 1986;18(1):44–9. pmid:3959863
  77. 77. Caserotti P, Aagaard P, Larsen JB, Puggaard L. Explosive heavy-resistance training in old and very old adults: changes in rapid muscle force, strength and power. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2008;18(6):773–82. pmid:18248533
  78. 78. Ahtiainen JP, Hoffren M, Hulmi JJ, Pietikäinen M, Mero AA, Avela J, et al. Panoramic ultrasonography is a valid method to measure changes in skeletal muscle cross-sectional area. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;108(2):273–9. pmid:19777252
  79. 79. Ruas C, Pinto R, D Lima C, Costa P, Brown L. Test-Retest Reliability of Muscle Thickness, Echo-Intensity and Cross Sectional Area of Quadriceps and Hamstrings Muscle Groups Using B-mode Ultrasound. International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science. 2017;5:35–41.
  80. 80. Pinto RS, Correa CS, Radaelli R, Cadore EL, Brown LE, Bottaro M. Short-term strength training improves muscle quality and functional capacity of elderly women. Age (Dordrecht, Netherlands). 2014;36(1):365–72. pmid:23881608
  81. 81. Mendis MD, Wilson SJ, Stanton W, Hides JA. Validity of real-time ultrasound imaging to measure anterior hip muscle size: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 2010;40(9):577–81. pmid:20479536
  82. 82. Noorkoiv M, Nosaka K, Blazevich AJ. Assessment of quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area by ultrasound extended-field-of-view imaging. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;109(4):631–9. pmid:20191287
  83. 83. Scott JM, Martin DS, Ploutz-Snyder R, Caine T, Matz T, Arzeno NM, et al. Reliability and validity of panoramic ultrasound for muscle quantification. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2012;38(9):1656–61. pmid:22749820
  84. 84. Scott JM, Martin DS, Ploutz-Snyder R, Matz T, Caine T, Downs M, et al. Panoramic ultrasound: a novel and valid tool for monitoring change in muscle mass. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2017;8(3):475–81. pmid:28052593
  85. 85. Stokes T, Tripp T, Murphy K, Morton R, Oikawa S, Choi H, et al. Methodological considerations for and validation of the ultrasonographic determination of human skeletal muscle hypertrophy and atrophy. Physiological Reports. 2021;9. pmid:33403796
  86. 86. Bassey EJ, Fiatarone MA, O’Neill EF, Kelly M, Evans WJ, Lipsitz LA. Leg extensor power and functional performance in very old men and women. Clin Sci (Lond). 1992;82(3):321–7. pmid:1312417
  87. 87. Bassey EJ, Short AH. A new method for measuring power output in a single leg extension: feasibility, reliability and validity. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1990;60(5):385–90. pmid:2369911
  88. 88. Mertz KH, Reitelseder S, Jensen M, Lindberg J, Hjulmand M, Schucany A, et al. Influence of between-limb asymmetry in muscle mass, strength, and power on functional capacity in healthy older adults. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019;29(12):1901–8. pmid:31353627
  89. 89. Nielsen JL, Frandsen U, Jensen KY, Prokhorova TA, Dalgaard LB, Bech RD, et al. Skeletal Muscle Microvascular Changes in Response to Short-Term Blood Flow Restricted Training-Exercise-Induced Adaptations and Signs of Perivascular Stress. Frontiers in physiology. 2020;11:556. pmid:32595516
  90. 90. Bergstrom J. Muscle electrolytes in man determined by neutron activation analysis on needle biopsy specimens. 1962;Vol: 14: Suppl. 68.
  91. 91. Ekblom B. The muscle biopsy technique. Historical and methodological considerations. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017;27(5):458–61. pmid:28033689
  92. 92. Suetta C, Andersen JL, Dalgas U, Berget J, Koskinen S, Aagaard P, et al. Resistance training induces qualitative changes in muscle morphology, muscle architecture, and muscle function in elderly postoperative patients. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md: 1985). 2008;105(1):180–6. pmid:18420714
  93. 93. Hinarejos P, Goicoechea N, Gidi M, Leal J, Torres-Claramunt R, Sánchez-Soler J, et al. Pressure algometry is a suitable tool to assess anterior knee pain in osteoarthritic patients. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology. 2019;29. pmid:30734099
  94. 94. Pelfort X, Torres-Claramunt R, Sánchez-Soler JF, Hinarejos P, Leal-Blanquet J, Valverde D, et al. Pressure algometry is a useful tool to quantify pain in the medial part of the knee: an intra- and inter-reliability study in healthy subjects. Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research: OTSR. 2015;101(5):559–63. pmid:26025162
  95. 95. Kinser AM, Sands WA, Stone MH. Reliability and validity of a pressure algometer. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2009;23(1):312–4. pmid:19130648
  96. 96. Mutlu E, Ozdincler A. Reliability and responsiveness of algometry for measuring pressure pain threshold in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Journal of physical therapy science. 2015;27:1961–5. pmid:26180358
  97. 97. Stausholm MB, Bjordal JM, Moe-Nilssen R, Naterstad IF. Pain pressure threshold algometry in knee osteoarthritis: intra- and inter-rater reliability. Physiotherapy theory and practice. 2022:1–8. pmid:35019810
  98. 98. Wylde V, Palmer S, Learmonth ID, Dieppe P. Test-retest reliability of Quantitative Sensory Testing in knee osteoarthritis and healthy participants. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. 2011;19(6):655–8. pmid:21329759
  99. 99. Bandak E, Overgaard AF, Kristensen LE, Ellegaard K, Guldberg-Møller J, Bartholdy C, et al. Exercise therapy and patient education versus intra-articular saline injections in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: an evidence-based protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial (the DISCO trial). Trials. 2021;22(1):18. pmid:33407791
  100. 100. Segal NA, Glass NA, Torner J, Yang M, Felson DT, Sharma L, et al. Quadriceps weakness predicts risk for knee joint space narrowing in women in the MOST cohort. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. 2010;18(6):769–75. pmid:20188686
  101. 101. Harper SA, Roberts LM, Layne AS, Jaeger BC, Gardner AK, Sibille KT, et al. Blood-Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise for Older Adults with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2019;8(2):265. pmid:30795545