Clinical Research Directory

Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization vs Pelvic Floor Muscle Training in Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence

This randomized controlled trial aims to compare the pre- and post-treatment effects of Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization (DNS) training and Pelvic Floor Muscle Training (PFMT) on pelvic floor muscle function, pelvic floor morphometry, urinary symptoms, quality of life, sexual function, and physical activity levels in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Participants diagnosed with SUI by a specialist physician will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: DNS, PFMT, or a control group. Both DNS and PFMT interventions will be delivered as 12-week home exercise programs, performed five days a week and at least three times per day. To support adherence, participants will use an exercise diary. In addition, participants in the DNS and PFMT groups will attend the clinic twice a week for supervised sessions led by a physiotherapist. The control group will receive a brochure containing lifestyle and bladder health recommendations but will not engage in any structured exercise program.

BFR Training for Post ACLR

This randomized clinical trial is designed to compare three different rehabilitation methods for patients who have undergone anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The study aims to determine whether low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFRt) is more effective than high-load eccentric training (HL-Et) and a sham LL-BFRt in improving three key areas: patellar position, muscle morphology, and leg function. Study Design and Interventions Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the three intervention groups. All groups will perform eccentric exercises, including single leg squats, single leg deadlifts, lateral step downs, and single leg calf raises. The key differences lie in the load and the use of blood flow restriction: LL-BFRt Group: Participants will train at 30% of their repetition maximum (RM) while a cuff restricts blood flow to 70% of their artery occlusion pressure (AOP). HL-Et Group: Participants will train at a higher intensity, using 70% of their repetition maximum (RM), with no blood flow restriction. Sham LL-BFRt Group: Participants will perform the same exercises as the LL-BFRt group at 30% of their RM, but the cuff will not be inflated to a pressure that restricts blood flow. After the training period, the researchers will compare the outcomes across all three groups to see which method leads to the most significant improvements in patella position, muscle morphology, and leg function.

BFR Training on Muscle Morphology

This randomized clinical trial study compares high-load eccentric training (HL-Et), sham LL-BFRt, and low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFRt) in sportsmen. The primary inquiries it seeks to address are: Is LL-BFR superior to HL-Et and sham LL-BFRt in terms of improving muscle morphology? Is LL-BFR a more effective Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome and ACL injury preventive than HL-Et and sham LL-BFRt? The three intervention groups that will be randomly assigned to participants are LL-BFRt, sham LL-BFRt, and HL-Et. Participants are expected to carry out: Participants in LL-BFRt will be required to perform LL eccentric training at 30% of their repetition maximum (RM) and 70% of their artery occlusion pressure (AOP). This training will include stairs, single leg squat, and single leg deadlift. Participants in HL-Et will be required to perform LL eccentric training at 70% of their maximum number of repetitions (RM). In order to determine whether muscular morphology and the prevention of Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome and ACL injury improve following the interventions and follow-up, researchers will compare LL-BFRt, sham LL-BFRt, and HL-Et.