Clinical Comparison of Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome Outcomes After Blood Flow Restriction Therapy
NCT ID: NCT05617911
Last Updated: 2025-12-10
Study Results
Results available
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
TERMINATED
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
1 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2022-11-15
Study Completion Date
2023-10-10
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The purpose of this study is to determine if Blood Flow Restriction therapy improves patient related outcomes in those diagnosed with Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome compared to those in the sham comparator control group.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Platelet-rich Plasma Injections for Persistent Medial Knee Pain After Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT03225092
Knee Pain Chronic
Pes Anserinus Bursitis
Status-Post Total Knee Arthroplasty
WITHDRAWN
EARLY_PHASE1
Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy for Patellar Tendinopathy
NCT03136965
Patellar Tendinitis
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Study of Platelet-rich Plasma in Treating Patients With Tibiofemoral Cartilage Degeneration
NCT01418755
Cartilage Degeneration
COMPLETED
NA
Prospective Post Approval Clinical Follow-Up Study of the Commercially Available U2 Knee™ System - "U-Propel Study"
NCT03060057
Osteo Arthritis Knee
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Patellar Tendon Regeneration With Platelet-rich Plasma
NCT01111747
Knee Instability
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome (PFPS), also known as Non-Specific Anterior Knee Pain (AKP), is a non-specific musculoskeletal condition characterized by loss of function and pain localized to the patella. PFPS affects up to 22% of the general population yearly, with females affected more so than males. Adolescents (28%, mixed gender) and elite athletes (up to 35% in knee dominant sports such as cycling) are also commonly affected, making this a relatively widespread condition. Additionally, PFPS has a generally unfavorable prognosis, with up to 40% of individuals failing conservative treatment after 1 year, and 57% reporting continued symptoms for 5 to 8-years following. Higher levels of baseline disability and longer duration of symptoms lead to an even poorer prognosis, making early recognition and novel treatments key. To complicate things further, the presence of negative psychosocial factors is commonly found in this population and may be a greater predictor of outcomes than physical ones.
Previously, biomechanical factors, such as maltracking of the patella and chondromalacia, have been called into question as potential causes of PFPS symptoms. However, both are now thought to be potential consequences of having PFPS. That being said, PFPS is generally accepted as a non-specific condition as there may be a number of different structures implicated as potential nociceptive drivers, and determining the exact tissue does not seem to be important to overall management strategies. This finding, in connection with the high prevalence of negative psychosocial factors, points less to a physiologically driven condition, and more towards a pain driven condition. While this theoretically makes diagnosing and treatment selection more ubiquitous, there does not seem to be a clear treatment strategy that works best for all patients. Despite a clear biomechanical cause, adjusting exercise selection or technique to include different loads and forces on the patella is still warranted based on patient presentation. For example, during open chain knee extension, the lowest loads are placed on the patella between 90- and 45-degree flexion, and open chain between 0 and 60 degrees. People with PFPS often benefit from adjusting the exercise selection, technique and load.
Recent research compared multiple different exercise strategies (combined core and hip work, knee work only, and open vs closed-chain), without any one program showing significant advantage over the others. A combination of these approaches may be best. One theme within PFPS exercise research that appears consistent is the high level of sensitivity and poor response to treatment where higher levels of pain are present. This is in contrast to tendon related pain, such as patellar tendinopathy, where working into moderate levels of pain seems to be helpful for outcomes.
The main mechanism driving improvements following exercise therapy for PFPS is not hypertrophy, but rather thought to be exercise induced hypoalgesia. This is a phenomenon where performing both acute bouts, as well as regular exercise (aerobic and resistance), reduces pain both in the short and long terms. Since exercise seems to reduce pain in both local and distant sites of the exercising area, it is thought to provide both local and systemic pain reducing effects. The magnitude and duration of the exercise seems to play an important role as well, with higher intensity and longer durations of exercising producing greater effects.
Since patients with PFPS are unable to achieve these desired parameters, alternative strategies need to be investigated. Two options may be blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy and low load training to failure, both of which may capture some of the hypoalgesic effects while minimizing AKP. BFR involves the application of an external device to reduce arterial blood flow to the exercising area, while largely occluding venous return from that same area. Exercise intensities generally range from 20-30% of the patients' 1 repetition maximum (1RM) weight, with relatively high repetitions (sometimes to failure); this is opposed to traditional resistance training at 70%+ of 1RM. BFR training has been demonstrated to amplify the effects of exercise induced hypoalgesia (in addition to a host of other physiological benefits) through unconfirmed mechanisms. Leading theories suggest that the lack of available oxygen to the exercising area may lead to: the activation of the endogenous opioid and cannabinoid systems; systemic changes to the cardiovascular system; or increased number of metabolites such as hydrogen ions and lactic acid, which may also be contributing factors.
Clinical research on the application of BFR in patients with PFPS has been both limited and mixed, with only two trials having been conducted in this area. One study from 2017 looked at high-load with BFR placebo, versus low-load BFR with leg press and knee extensions. Only the high-load group showed a modest medium-term effect on pain, lowering it for \~24 hours after BFR over the training period. The other paper from 2022 included both knee and hip strengthening exercises, comparing a low-load BFR group versus a high-load training group with no placebo; of note, the programs were not equated in terms of exercises completed. In this study, no significant difference was observed between groups. To date, there have been limited to no sham arms in studies where a BFR cuff was used. Given the potential for placebo effects, this was an important consideration in the design of the study.
Given the heterogeneity of these two studies, and the paucity of research in this area, the aim of the current study is to compare a low load training to failure (with BFR placebo) to low load BFR training to failure on the effect of pain related outcomes, function, strength and other measures. We hypothesize that BFR training will improve objective and subjective outcomes in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) more than standard therapy with a sham BFR cuff.
Research aim 1: Determine whether the use of BFR improves patient-perceived function through a series of subjective patient-reported outcome measurements (PROs) throughout long-term recovery compared to patients in the sham control group. While we anticipate both groups may show improvement over time, we hypothesize that patients using BFR and the prescribed physical therapy protocol will demonstrate significantly improved PRO scores compared to the sham control group. These PROs include the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF), the Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain Scale 1-10. Participants will be asked to complete PRO at the start of physical therapy (i.e. baseline), 4-weeks, 9-weeks or patient discharge if it is before the scheduled 9-week assessment, 6-month, and 12-month timepoints.
Research aim 2: Determine whether the use of BFR improves objective outcome measurements throughout prescribed physical therapy sessions compared to patients in the control group. While we anticipate both groups may show improvement over time, we hypothesize that patients using BFR and the prescribed physical therapy protocol will demonstrate significantly improved quadriceps isometric strength over the sham control group. Outcomes will be measured at the start of the physical therapy (i.e. baseline), 4-weeks, and 9-weeks or patient discharge if it is before the scheduled 9-week assessment.
Previously, biomechanical factors, such as maltracking of the patella and chondromalacia, have been called into question as potential causes of PFPS symptoms. However, both are now thought to be potential consequences of having PFPS. That being said, PFPS is generally accepted as a non-specific condition as there may be a number of different structures implicated as potential nociceptive drivers, and determining the exact tissue does not seem to be important to overall management strategies. This finding, in connection with the high prevalence of negative psychosocial factors, points less to a physiologically driven condition, and more towards a pain driven condition. While this theoretically makes diagnosing and treatment selection more ubiquitous, there does not seem to be a clear treatment strategy that works best for all patients. Despite a clear biomechanical cause, adjusting exercise selection or technique to include different loads and forces on the patella is still warranted based on patient presentation. For example, during open chain knee extension, the lowest loads are placed on the patella between 90- and 45-degree flexion, and open chain between 0 and 60 degrees. People with PFPS often benefit from adjusting the exercise selection, technique and load.
Recent research compared multiple different exercise strategies (combined core and hip work, knee work only, and open vs closed-chain), without any one program showing significant advantage over the others. A combination of these approaches may be best. One theme within PFPS exercise research that appears consistent is the high level of sensitivity and poor response to treatment where higher levels of pain are present. This is in contrast to tendon related pain, such as patellar tendinopathy, where working into moderate levels of pain seems to be helpful for outcomes.
The main mechanism driving improvements following exercise therapy for PFPS is not hypertrophy, but rather thought to be exercise induced hypoalgesia. This is a phenomenon where performing both acute bouts, as well as regular exercise (aerobic and resistance), reduces pain both in the short and long terms. Since exercise seems to reduce pain in both local and distant sites of the exercising area, it is thought to provide both local and systemic pain reducing effects. The magnitude and duration of the exercise seems to play an important role as well, with higher intensity and longer durations of exercising producing greater effects.
Since patients with PFPS are unable to achieve these desired parameters, alternative strategies need to be investigated. Two options may be blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy and low load training to failure, both of which may capture some of the hypoalgesic effects while minimizing AKP. BFR involves the application of an external device to reduce arterial blood flow to the exercising area, while largely occluding venous return from that same area. Exercise intensities generally range from 20-30% of the patients' 1 repetition maximum (1RM) weight, with relatively high repetitions (sometimes to failure); this is opposed to traditional resistance training at 70%+ of 1RM. BFR training has been demonstrated to amplify the effects of exercise induced hypoalgesia (in addition to a host of other physiological benefits) through unconfirmed mechanisms. Leading theories suggest that the lack of available oxygen to the exercising area may lead to: the activation of the endogenous opioid and cannabinoid systems; systemic changes to the cardiovascular system; or increased number of metabolites such as hydrogen ions and lactic acid, which may also be contributing factors.
Clinical research on the application of BFR in patients with PFPS has been both limited and mixed, with only two trials having been conducted in this area. One study from 2017 looked at high-load with BFR placebo, versus low-load BFR with leg press and knee extensions. Only the high-load group showed a modest medium-term effect on pain, lowering it for \~24 hours after BFR over the training period. The other paper from 2022 included both knee and hip strengthening exercises, comparing a low-load BFR group versus a high-load training group with no placebo; of note, the programs were not equated in terms of exercises completed. In this study, no significant difference was observed between groups. To date, there have been limited to no sham arms in studies where a BFR cuff was used. Given the potential for placebo effects, this was an important consideration in the design of the study.
Given the heterogeneity of these two studies, and the paucity of research in this area, the aim of the current study is to compare a low load training to failure (with BFR placebo) to low load BFR training to failure on the effect of pain related outcomes, function, strength and other measures. We hypothesize that BFR training will improve objective and subjective outcomes in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) more than standard therapy with a sham BFR cuff.
Research aim 1: Determine whether the use of BFR improves patient-perceived function through a series of subjective patient-reported outcome measurements (PROs) throughout long-term recovery compared to patients in the sham control group. While we anticipate both groups may show improvement over time, we hypothesize that patients using BFR and the prescribed physical therapy protocol will demonstrate significantly improved PRO scores compared to the sham control group. These PROs include the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF), the Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain Scale 1-10. Participants will be asked to complete PRO at the start of physical therapy (i.e. baseline), 4-weeks, 9-weeks or patient discharge if it is before the scheduled 9-week assessment, 6-month, and 12-month timepoints.
Research aim 2: Determine whether the use of BFR improves objective outcome measurements throughout prescribed physical therapy sessions compared to patients in the control group. While we anticipate both groups may show improvement over time, we hypothesize that patients using BFR and the prescribed physical therapy protocol will demonstrate significantly improved quadriceps isometric strength over the sham control group. Outcomes will be measured at the start of the physical therapy (i.e. baseline), 4-weeks, and 9-weeks or patient discharge if it is before the scheduled 9-week assessment.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome
Anterior Knee Pain Syndrome
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Sham and standard of care therapy
The sham comparator control group will also follow the Exercise Protocol in their physical therapy sessions with a non inflated blood flow restriction cuff attached in the same position as the experimental group. Similar to the intervention group, as participant's progress in therapy, the Physical Therapist will use their clinical decision making to advance the person through resistance and repetition increases.
Group Type
PLACEBO_COMPARATOR
Sham and standard of Care Therapy
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
SoC PT + non-inflated BFR cuff
Blood flow restriction and standard of care therapy
The experimental BFR therapy will be incorporated into the standard therapy sessions and will not elongate the treatment session, quantity of sessions or incur any additional cost. As the participant progresses over time in therapy sessions, the discretion of the PT will determine when they have graduated beyond receiving any benefit from BFRT as demonstrated by quad strength.
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Blood Flow Restriction Cuff
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) involves the application of an external device to reduce arterial blood flow to the exercising area, while largely occluding venous return from that same area.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Blood Flow Restriction Cuff
Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) involves the application of an external device to reduce arterial blood flow to the exercising area, while largely occluding venous return from that same area.
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Sham and standard of Care Therapy
SoC PT + non-inflated BFR cuff
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Diagnosis of patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) or non-specific anterior knee pain (NSAKP) and plan to attend Gaylord Specialty Healthcare Physical Therapy
Exclusion Criteria
Member of a defined vulnerable population, women who are or suspected to be pregnant, prisoners, children under 15, or other protected populations
Body mass of the leg preventing the cuff from fitting properly
Radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis (≥ Kellgren-Lawrence Grade 2)
History of intra-articular injection into either knee within 3 -months
Uncontrolled or untreated inflammatory disorder
Acute inflammatory disorder
Uncontrolled Diabetes and/or peripheral neuropathy, impaired circulation
Uncontrolled cardiac conditions including uncontrolled hypertension
Areas of thrombophlebitis, thrombosis
Distal wounds or pain below the knee \>4/10
History of or current rhabdomyolysis
Prolonged immobilization (\>3 months)
Sickle cell anemia
Lymphadenectomy
Varicose veins, or a history of personal or immediate family history (parental or sibling) of deep vein thrombosis
Current infection at or below the level of cuff placement
Malignancies in or below the area to be treated
Other conditions/medications that would interfere with subject safety or data collection in the opinion of the PI
Subjects with an increased risk of non-response as determined by the therapist
Once entered in the study, a diagnosis change that affects participation
Body mass of the leg preventing the cuff from fitting properly
Radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis (≥ Kellgren-Lawrence Grade 2)
History of intra-articular injection into either knee within 3 -months
Uncontrolled or untreated inflammatory disorder
Acute inflammatory disorder
Uncontrolled Diabetes and/or peripheral neuropathy, impaired circulation
Uncontrolled cardiac conditions including uncontrolled hypertension
Areas of thrombophlebitis, thrombosis
Distal wounds or pain below the knee \>4/10
History of or current rhabdomyolysis
Prolonged immobilization (\>3 months)
Sickle cell anemia
Lymphadenectomy
Varicose veins, or a history of personal or immediate family history (parental or sibling) of deep vein thrombosis
Current infection at or below the level of cuff placement
Malignancies in or below the area to be treated
Other conditions/medications that would interfere with subject safety or data collection in the opinion of the PI
Subjects with an increased risk of non-response as determined by the therapist
Once entered in the study, a diagnosis change that affects participation
Minimum Eligible Age
15 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
UConn Health
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Gaylord Hospital, Inc
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Eric Sokolowski
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Physical Therapist
Danielle Letendre
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Physical Therapist
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Gaylord Specialty Healthcare Outpatient Physical Therapy; Cheshire
Cheshire, Connecticut, United States
Site Status
Gaylord Specialty Healthcare Outpatient Physical Therapy; Cromwell
Cromwell, Connecticut, United States
Site Status
University of Connecticut Health Center
Farmington, Connecticut, United States
Site Status
Gaylord Specialty Healthcare Outpatient Physical Therapy; Madison
Madison, Connecticut, United States
Site Status
Gaylord Hospital
Wallingford, Connecticut, United States
Site Status
Gaylord Specialty Healthcare Outpatient Physical Therapy; Wallingford
Wallingford, Connecticut, United States
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
United States
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Smith BE, Selfe J, Thacker D, Hendrick P, Bateman M, Moffatt F, Rathleff MS, Smith TO, Logan P. Incidence and prevalence of patellofemoral pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Jan 11;13(1):e0190892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190892. eCollection 2018.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Collins NJ, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Crossley KM, van Linschoten RL, Vicenzino B, van Middelkoop M. Prognostic factors for patellofemoral pain: a multicentre observational analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2013 Mar;47(4):227-33. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091696. Epub 2012 Dec 13.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lankhorst NE, van Middelkoop M, Crossley KM, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Oei EH, Vicenzino B, Collins NJ. Factors that predict a poor outcome 5-8 years after the diagnosis of patellofemoral pain: a multicentre observational analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2016 Jul;50(14):881-6. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094664. Epub 2015 Oct 13.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Maclachlan LR, Matthews M, Hodges PW, Collins NJ, Vicenzino B. The psychological features of patellofemoral pain: a cross-sectional study. Scand J Pain. 2018 Apr 25;18(2):261-271. doi: 10.1515/sjpain-2018-0025.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Post WR, Dye SF. Patellofemoral Pain: An Enigma Explained by Homeostasis and Common Sense. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2017 Mar/Apr;46(2):92-100.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Saltychev M, Dutton RA, Laimi K, Beaupre GS, Virolainen P, Fredericson M. Effectiveness of conservative treatment for patellofemoral pain syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med. 2018 May 8;50(5):393-401. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2295.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Powers CM, Ho KY, Chen YJ, Souza RB, Farrokhi S. Patellofemoral joint stress during weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing quadriceps exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014 May;44(5):320-7. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.4936. Epub 2014 Mar 27.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Collins NJ, Barton CJ, van Middelkoop M, Callaghan MJ, Rathleff MS, Vicenzino BT, Davis IS, Powers CM, Macri EM, Hart HF, de Oliveira Silva D, Crossley KM. 2018 Consensus statement on exercise therapy and physical interventions (orthoses, taping and manual therapy) to treat patellofemoral pain: recommendations from the 5th International Patellofemoral Pain Research Retreat, Gold Coast, Australia, 2017. Br J Sports Med. 2018 Sep;52(18):1170-1178. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099397. Epub 2018 Jun 20.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kountouris A, Cook J. Rehabilitation of Achilles and patellar tendinopathies. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007 Apr;21(2):295-316. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2006.12.003.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Song JS, Spitz RW, Yamada Y, Bell ZW, Wong V, Abe T, Loenneke JP. Exercise-induced hypoalgesia and pain reduction following blood flow restriction: A brief review. Phys Ther Sport. 2021 Jul;50:89-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2021.04.005. Epub 2021 Apr 23.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Misra G, Paris TA, Archer DB, Coombes SA. Dose-response effect of isometric force production on the perception of pain. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 4;9(2):e88105. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088105. eCollection 2014.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Hughes L, Patterson SD. The effect of blood flow restriction exercise on exercise-induced hypoalgesia and endogenous opioid and endocannabinoid mechanisms of pain modulation. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2020 Apr 1;128(4):914-924. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00768.2019. Epub 2020 Feb 27.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
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 Dec;51(23):1688-1694. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096329. Epub 2017 May 12.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Constantinou A, Mamais I, Papathanasiou G, Lamnisos D, Stasinopoulos D. Comparing hip and knee focused exercises versus hip and knee focused exercises with the use of blood flow restriction training in adults with patellofemoral pain. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2022 Apr;58(2):225-235. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.22.06691-6. Epub 2022 Jan 5.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Dolak KL, Silkman C, Medina McKeon J, Hosey RG, Lattermann C, Uhl TL. Hip strengthening prior to functional exercises reduces pain sooner than quadriceps strengthening in females with patellofemoral pain syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Aug;41(8):560-70. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2011.3499. Epub 2011 Jun 7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sisk D, Fredericson M. Update of Risk Factors, Diagnosis, and Management of Patellofemoral Pain. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019 Dec;12(4):534-541. doi: 10.1007/s12178-019-09593-z.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Brightwell BD, Stone A, Li X, Hardy P, Thompson K, Noehren B, Jacobs C. Blood flow Restriction training After patellar INStability (BRAINS Trial). Trials. 2022 Jan 28;23(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06017-1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Thiebaud RS, Yasuda T, Loenneke JP, Abe T. Effects of low-intensity concentric and eccentric exercise combined with blood flow restriction on indices of exercise-induced muscle damage. Interv Med Appl Sci. 2013 Jun;5(2):53-9. doi: 10.1556/IMAS.5.2013.2.1. Epub 2013 Jul 4.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
202209SOK
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Fibrin Sealant in Bilateral Simultaneous Total Knee Arthroplasty With Focus on Blood Loss, Pain, Swelling and Strength
NCT01472913
COMPLETED
PHASE4
FastFrame Knee Spanning and Damage Control Kit PMCF
NCT04730739
TERMINATED
NA
Platelet-rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injection for the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement
NCT02920177
TERMINATED
PHASE4
The Effect of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) on Post Operative Pain in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
NCT01765712
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Standard Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP)
NCT01075230
TERMINATED
NA
Plasma Injections Plus Exercise for Patellar Tendinopathy
NCT02116946
TERMINATED
PHASE2
Intraarticular Leukocyte-rich and Leukocyte-poor PRP for Osteoarthritis of the Knee
NCT05737173
COMPLETED
PHASE2/PHASE3
Changes in the Immunomodulatory Properties of Adipose Stromal Cells Due to Hemarthrosis After Knee Injury
NCT05687331
UNKNOWN
Pilot Synovial Fluid Molecular/Stem Cell Response to PRP in Knee Osteoarthritis: Clinical & Imaging Outcome Correlation
NCT02468492
COMPLETED
EARLY_PHASE1
The Use of Stromal Vascular Fraction for Knee Arthrosis
NCT06171204
RECRUITING
NA
Intra Articular Injections With Platelet Rich Plasma in Patients With Juvenile Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee
NCT02397278
COMPLETED
NA
Efficacy of PRP (Platelet Rich Plasma) Following Arthroscopic Microfracture of Chondral Lesions of the Hip
NCT02183896
WITHDRAWN
NA
Computational Simulation of Patellar Instability
NCT02998372
TERMINATED
Treatment of Refractory Patellar Tendinopathy With Mesenquimal Trunk Cells. Comparative Study With PRP.
NCT03454737
UNKNOWN
NA
Post Market Clinical Follow-Up of the Zimmer Stafit Acetabular System
NCT04079114
TERMINATED
Use of Fresh Platelet Rich Plasma With Concentrated Leukocytes or Fresh Platelet Rich Plasma Without Concentrated Leukocytes in the Treatment of Knee Cartilage Degeneration: a Randomized Controlled Trial
NCT04187183
COMPLETED
NA
Synovial Tissue and Fat Pad Stromal Vascular Fraction Bioengineering in Patients With Knee Articular Cartilage Injury
NCT05120700
UNKNOWN
PHASE1/PHASE2
Registry for the Use of HEMOBLAST Bellows in Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT03772912
WITHDRAWN
Platelet Rich Plasma in Knee Osteoarthritis
NCT05080075
COMPLETED
EARLY_PHASE1
PRP vs PRP Plus IGF for Patellar Tendinosis
NCT04350827
COMPLETED
NA
Geniculate Artery Embolization for Knee Osteoarthritis
NCT04951479
COMPLETED
NA
Clinical Study Evaluating the Outcomes of a New Knee System with a Physiological Rollback Mechanism
NCT02118272
TERMINATED
NA
Platelet Rich Plasma Injection for Knee Pain
NCT01747018
COMPLETED
PHASE1/PHASE2
Geniculate Artery Embolization for Treatment of Persistent Knee Pain Post Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT06134817
TERMINATED
NA