Evidence Hub

The efficacy of intermittent pneumatic compression and negative pressure therapy on muscle function, soreness and serum indices of muscle damage: a randomized controlled trial

S. Wiecha, Martyna Jarocka, P. Wiśniowski, M. Cieśliński, Szymon Price, Bartłomiej Makaruk, J. Kotowska, Dorota Drabarek et al.

BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2021

15 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

Background The study aimed to assess whether intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and intermittent negative pressure (INP) would attenuate the muscle damaging effects of eccentric exercise. Methods Forty-five healthy males were recruited. Immediately post, 24 and 48 h post eccentric exercise consisting of 100 drop jumps, volunteers randomly received 30-min sessions of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC, n = 15) or intermittent negative pressure (INP, n = 15), or sham microcurrent (PT, n = 15). Creatine kinase (CK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), isokinetic muscle strength, soreness and active flexion of the knee joint were measured after every therapy session. Results No significant intergroup differences were observed in biochemical or functional measurements. However, there was an increase in muscle soreness ( P < 0.05), CK and LDH activity ( P < 0.05), and a reduction in muscle strength ( P < 0.05) and range of active knee flexion ( P < 0.05). Conclusions The prescription of IPC and INP did not attenuate the reduction of markers to muscle function or pain perception up to 48 h after muscle damaging exercise. Future research should focus on the potential impact of treatment frequency and duration on muscle recovery. Trial registration The study was retrospectively registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR); The trial registration number: ACTRN12621001294842; date of registration: 24/09/2021.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 15 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free