↓ Skip to main content

Blood Flow Restriction Training After Knee Arthroscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
74 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
622 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Blood Flow Restriction Training After Knee Arthroscopy
Published in
Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000377
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Quadriceps strength after arthroscopic knee procedures is frequently diminished several years postoperation. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training uses partial venous occlusion while performing submaximal exercise to induce muscle hypertrophy and strength improvements. The purpose of this study was to evaluate BFR as a postoperative therapeutic intervention after knee arthroscopy. A randomized controlled pilot study comparing physical therapy with and without BFR after knee arthroscopy was conducted. Patients underwent 12 sessions of supervised physical therapy. Subjects followed the same postoperative protocol with the addition of 3 additional BFR exercises. Outcome measures included thigh girth, physical function measures, Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR12), and strength testing. Bilateral duplex ultrasonography was used to evaluate for deep venous thrombosis preintervention and postintervention. Seventeen patients completed the study. Significant increases in thigh girth were observed in the BFR group at 6-cm and 16-cm proximal to the patella (P = 0.0111 and 0.0001). All physical outcome measures significantly improved in the BFR group, and the timed stair ascent improvements were greater than conventional therapy (P = 0.0281). The VR-12 and KOOS subscales significantly improved in the BFR group, and greater improvement was seen in VR-12 mental component score (P = 0.0149). The BFR group displayed approximately 2-fold greater improvements in extension and flexion strength compared with conventional therapy (74.59% vs 33.5%, P = 0.034). No adverse events were observed during the study. This study suggests that BFR is an effective intervention after knee arthroscopy. Further investigation is warranted to elucidate the benefits of this intervention in populations with greater initial impairment.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 622 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 622 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 100 16%
Student > Master 62 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 52 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 5%
Student > Postgraduate 27 4%
Other 73 12%
Unknown 276 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 102 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 101 16%
Sports and Recreations 68 11%
Neuroscience 11 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Other 34 5%
Unknown 296 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2021.
All research outputs
#783,082
of 34,347,532 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine
#89
of 2,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,917
of 356,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,347,532 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.