Blood Flow Restriction in Upper-Extremity Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.
- 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Loyola University Medical Center Maywood Illinois U.S.A.
- 2Loyola Stritch School of Medicine Maywood Illinois U.S.A.
Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy on upper-extremity strength, pain, range of motion, and functional outcomes.Methods
This systematic review followed the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched from January 2000 through August 2025 for studies evaluating upper-extremity BFR during resistance or therapeutic exercise. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials or prospective studies published in English that reported pre- and postintervention outcomes of strength, pain, range of motion, muscle morphology, or validated functional scores.Results
A total of 492 studies were identified, 5 of which met inclusion criteria, encompassing 128 participants. Four studies (80%) were randomized controlled trials, and 1 study (20%) was a prospective cohort study. Clinical indications for the use of BFR included rotator cuff tendinopathy, lateral epicondylitis, distal radius fracture rehabilitation, and postoperative shoulder rehabilitation. Four of 5 studies (80%) showed statistically significant BFR-related improvements in strength, with the remaining study reporting within-group improvements that did not reach between-group significance. Three of 4 studies (75%) that assessed pain reported significant reductions favoring BFR, with the fourth showing clinically within-group pain reductions in both BFR and control. Notable findings included a significant between-group improvement in internal rotation strength at 60°/s favoring BFR in rotator cuff tendinopathy (P = .04) and significant pain reduction in distal radius fracture rehabilitation (visual analog scale: 5.5 → 1.5, P = .03).Conclusions
In this systematic review, 4 of 5 studies (80%) reported statistically significant strength improvements favoring BFR, and 3 of 4 studies (75%) assessing pain showed significant reductions favoring BFR, with no serious adverse events reported. These findings support BFR as a promising adjunct in upper-extremity rehabilitation; however, heterogeneity in study design and intervention parameters limits definitive conclusions.Level of evidence
Level IV, systematic review of Level I and IV studies.
Related
- Effects of blood flow restriction training in adult upper-limb musculoskeletal rehabilitation: A systematic review.
- Understanding underserved and underrepresented populations in European clinical studies: a narrative review with systematic approach
- Blood Flow Restriction Training in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence and Future Directions
- Clinical outcomes of graftless implant rehabilitation strategies for the posterior atrophic maxilla: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- A large language model for risk-of-bias assessment in systematic reviews of prognosis studies in clinical neurology
BibTeX
@article{christiansen2026blood,
title = {{Blood Flow Restriction in Upper-Extremity Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.}},
author = {Mitchell J Christiansen and Sundas Shaikh and Mary K Mulcahey},
journal = {Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1002/ars2.70130},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42948241},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Blood Flow Restriction in Upper-Extremity Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.
AU - Mitchell J Christiansen
AU - Sundas Shaikh
AU - Mary K Mulcahey
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/26
JO - Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation
DO - 10.1002/ars2.70130
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42948241
AB - Purpose To evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy on upper-extremity strength, pain, range of motion, and functional outcomes.Methods This systematic review followed the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched from January 2000 through August 2025 for studies evaluating upper-extremity BFR during resistance or therapeutic exercise. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials or prospective studies published in English that reported pre- and postintervention outcomes of strength, pain, range of motion, muscle morphology, or validated functional scores.Results A total of 492 studies were identified, 5 of which met inclusion criteria, encompassing 128 participants. Four studies (80%) were randomized controlled trials, and 1 study (20%) was a prospective cohort study. Clinical indications for the use of BFR included rotator cuff tendinopathy, lateral epicondylitis, distal radius fracture rehabilitation, and postoperative shoulder rehabilitation. Four of 5 studies (80%) showed statistically significant BFR-related improvements in strength, with the remaining study reporting within-group improvements that did not reach between-group significance. Three of 4 studies (75%) that assessed pain reported significant reductions favoring BFR, with the fourth showing clinically within-group pain reductions in both BFR and control. Notable findings included a significant between-group improvement in internal rotation strength at 60°/s favoring BFR in rotator cuff tendinopathy (P = .04) and significant pain reduction in distal radius fracture rehabilitation (visual analog scale: 5.5 → 1.5, P = .03).Conclusions In this systematic review, 4 of 5 studies (80%) reported statistically significant strength improvements favoring BFR, and 3 of 4 studies (75%) assessing pain showed significant reductions favoring BFR, with no serious adverse events reported. These findings support BFR as a promising adjunct in upper-extremity rehabilitation; however, heterogeneity in study design and intervention parameters limits definitive conclusions.Level of evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level I and IV studies.
SN - 2666-061X
ER -