Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic musculoskeletal disease that causes pain, functional disability, and an economic burden. Nonpharmacological treatments are at the core of OA management. However, limited access to these services due to uneven regional local availability has been highlighted. Internet-based telehealth (IBTH) programs, providing digital access to abundant health care resources, offer advantages, such as convenience and cost-effectiveness. These characteristics make them promising strategies for the management of patients with OA. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of IBTH programs in the management of patients with hip or knee OA. Methods: We systematically searched 6 electronic databases to identify trials comparing IBTH programs with conventional interventions for hip and knee OA. Studies were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on outcomes related to function, pain, and self-efficacy. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs were calculated to compare outcome measures. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² and χ² tests. The methodological quality of the selected studies and the quality of evidence were also evaluated. Results: A total of 21 studies with low-to-high risk of bias were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that IBTH has a superior effect on increasing function (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.23-0.37, P<.001), relieving pain (SMD –0.27, 95% CI –0.34 to –0.19, P<.001), and improving self-efficacy for pain (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.34, P<.001) compared to the conventional intervention group. Subgroup analysis revealed that IBTH with exercise can significantly alleviate pain and improve function and self-efficacy, but IBTH with cognitive-behavioral therapy only had the effect of reducing pain. Conclusions: The meta-analysis provides moderate-quality evidence that IBTH programs have a beneficial effect on improving function, relieving pain, and improving self-efficacy compared to conventional interventions in patients with hip or knee OA. Limited evidence suggests that the inclusion of exercise regimens in IBTH programs is recommended. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024541111; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=541111

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common degenerative disease that causes pain, functional impairment, and reduced quality of life. Resistance training is considered as an effective approach to reduce the risk of muscle weakness in patients with KOA. Blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-load resistance training has better clinical outcomes than low-load resistance training alone. However, the degree of BFR which works more effectively with low-load resistance training has not been determined. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of different degrees of BFR with low-load resistance training in patients with KOA on pain, self-reported function, physical function performance, muscle strength, muscle thickness, and quality of life. Methods: This is a study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial with blinded participants. One hundred individuals will be indiscriminately assigned into the following groups: two training groups with a BFR at 40% and 80% limb occlusion pressure (LOP), a training group without BFR, and a health education group. The three intervention groups will perform strength training for the quadriceps muscles twice a week for 12 weeks, while the health education group will attend sessions once a week for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is pain. The secondary outcomes include self-reported function, physical function performance, muscle strength of the knee extensors, muscle mass of the quadriceps, quality of life, and adverse events. Intention-to-treat analysis will be conducted for individuals who withdraw during the trial. Discussion: Previous studies have shown that BFR with low-load resistance training is more effective than low-load resistance training alone; however, a high degree of BFR may cause discomfort during training. If a 40% LOP for BFR could produce similar clinical outcomes as an 80% LOP for BFR, resistance training with a low degree of BFR can be chosen for patients with KOA who are unbearable for a high degree of BFR. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2000037859 (http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=59956&htm=4). Registered on 2 September 2020

Purpose: The blood flow restriction (BFR) training is an effective approach to promoting muscle strength, muscle hypertrophy, and regulating the peripheral vascular system. It is recommended to use to the percentage of individual arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) to ensure safety and effectiveness. The gold standard method for assessing arterial occlusive disease is typically measured using Doppler ultrasound. However, its high cost and limited accessibility restrict its use in clinical and practical applications. A novel wearable BFR training device (Airbands) with automatic AOP assessment provides an alternative solution. This study aims to examine the reliability and validity of the wearable BFR training device.Methods: Ninety-two participants (46 female and 46 male) were recruited for this study. Participants were positioned in the supine position with the wearable BFR training device placed on the proximal portion of the right thigh. AOP was measured automatically by the software program and manually by gradually increasing the pressure until the pulse was no longer detected by color Doppler ultrasound, respectively. Validity, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.Results: The wearable BFR training device demonstrated good validity (ICC = 0.85, mean difference = 4.1 ± 13.8 mmHg [95% CI: −23.0 to 31.2]), excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.97, mean difference = −1.4 ± 6.7 mmHg [95% CI: −14.4 to 11.7]), and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.94, mean difference = 0.6 ± 8.6 mmHg [95% CI: −16.3 to 17.5]) for the assessment of AOP. These results were robust in both male and female subgroups.Conclusion: The wearable BFR training device can be used as a valid and reliable tool to assess the AOP of the lower limb in the supine position during BFR training.

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a chronic musculoskeletal disorder characterized by pain and functional impairment. Blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-load resistance training (LLRT) demonstrates a similar improvement in clinical outcomes to high-load resistance training (HLRT) in treating KOA. It has not been established whether intermittent blood flow restriction (iBFR) with LLRT can lead to clinical outcomes that are comparable to those produced by continuous blood flow restriction (cBFR) with LLRT and HLRT. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the efficacy of iBFR with LLRT on pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence in KOA patients. Methods: This is a three-arm, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial utilizing blinded assessors. Two hundred thirteen participants will be randomly allocated to one of the following three groups: iBFR group—receiving 4 months of LLRT with iBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); cBFR group—receiving 4 months of LLRT with cBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); or HLRT group—receiving 4 months of HLRT without BFR, twice weekly (n = 71). The primary outcome is pain. The secondary outcomes include the WOMAC, muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence. Pain and WOMAC will be measured at the baseline and 4 and 12 months after randomizations. Muscle strength, muscle mass, and physical function will be measured at the baseline and 4 months after randomizations. The perceptions of discomfort and effort will be measured during the first and final sessions. Discussion: BFR with LLRT has a similar improvement in clinical outcomes as HLRT. However, cBFR may cause elevated ratings of perceived exertion and local discomfort, compromising patient tolerability and treatment adherence. If iBFR with LLRT could produce improvement in clinical outcomes analogous to those of HLRT and iBFR with LLRT, it could be considered an alternative approach for treating patients with KOA. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300072820. Registered on June 26, 2023.