Affiliations: [a] Department of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Piedmont “A. Avogadro”, Novara, Italy | [b] Translational Medicine, Dipartimento Attività Integrate Ricerca e Innovazione (DAIRI), Azienda Ospedaliera SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy | [c] Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit, Department of Neurosciences, ASST Carlo Poma, Mantova, Italy | [d] Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Catanzaro “Magna Graecia”, Catanzaro, Italy
Abstract: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
