Table 2. High velocity exercise and high intensity.
| Study | Level of evidence | Intervention cohort | Control cohort | Duration of follow-up | Outcomes, mean | ROM (degrees), mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Doerfler et al. | I | PRE and HV exercise 2× a wk for 8 wks | PRE and LV exercise 2× a wk for 8 wks | 4-6 wks | 6MW: HV 97.1 m vs. LV 54.4 m; P=0.049 | N/A |
| Fast concentric (1 s) and slow eccentric (3 s) contractions (n=12) | Slow concentric and eccentric (3 s) contractions (n=9) | PIF¶: HV 1.0 Nm/BMI vs. LV 0.6 Nm/BMI; P=0.03 | ||||
| 10-m Gait Speed: HV 1.31 s vs. LV 1.01 s; P=0.40 | ||||||
| Functional Stair Test: HV 1.9 s vs. LV 1.2 s; P=0.33 | ||||||
| Balance test¶: HV 0.10 vs. LV 0.11; P=0.96 | ||||||
| Kelly et al. | I | HV curbs and stairs for 2 sessions a wk | LV curbs and stairs for 2 sessions a wk | 7 wks | 6MW: HV 393 m vs. LV 383.9 m; P=0.001 | N/A |
| Fast concentric (1 s) and slow eccentric (2 s) contractions | Fast concentric (2 s) and slow eccentric (2 s) contractions | SCT: HV 20.2 s vs. LV 21.6 s; P=0.001 | ||||
| The end range of the concentric contraction held for 5 s (n=19) | The end range of the concentric contraction held for 5 s (n=19) | TUG: HV 10.4 s vs. LV 10.8 s; P=0.001 | ||||
| VAS: HV 13.0 vs. LV 21.8; P=0.001 | ||||||
| Bade et al. | I | HI: Warm up, PRE targeting all lower extremity muscle groups; bilateral and unilateral WB functional exercises, balance exercises, agility exercises 2–3× a wk for 11 wks (n=84) | LI: Isometric and ROM exercise the first 4 wks, a slower transition to WB exercises, only body weight and elastic bands for resistance, restriction of activities outside of ADL’s the first 4 wks 2–3× a wk for 11 wks (n=78) | 3 mos | TUG¶: HI −1.35 s vs. LI −1.01 s; P=0.08 | Extension¶: HI −0.61 vs. LI −0.35; P=0.53 |
| 6MW¶: HI 38.83 m vs. LI 23.39 m; P=0.13 | Flexion¶: HI −1.93 vs. LI −2.10; P=0.90 | |||||
| SCT¶: HI −3.89 s vs. LI −3.28 s; P=0.21 | ||||||
| WOMAC¶: HI −19.60 vs. LI −19.48; P=0.93 | ||||||
| Quad strength¶: HI 0.02 Nm/kg vs. LI −0.05 Nm/kg; P=0.14 | ||||||
| Quad activation¶: HI 11.70% vs. LI 8.52%; P=0.14 | ||||||
| Adverse event rates¶: HI 1 fall vs. LI 3 falls; P=0.78 | ||||||
| 12 mos | TUG: HI 7.36 s (1.77) vs. LI 7.44 s (1.50) | Extension: HI –2.18 (2.43) vs. LI –1.76 (2.28) | ||||
| 6MW: HI 531.7 m (98.9) vs. LI 513.6 m (78.4) | Flexion: HI 129.28 (8.89) vs. LI 128.27 (8.61) | |||||
| SCT: HI 11.40 s (3.62) vs. LI 11.77 s (3.15) | ||||||
| WOMAC: HI 6.69 (7.75) vs. LI 7.16 (6.28) | ||||||
| Quad strength: HI 1.42 Nm/kg (0.47) vs. LI 1.43 Nm/kg (0.44) | ||||||
| Quad activation: HI 83.39% (11.73) vs. LI 83.73% (10.12) | ||||||
| Pozzi et al. | I | HI: 12 sessions of PS 2–3× a wk (n=165) | CG: No knee joint pathology, no rehabilitation (n=88) | 12 mos | KOS-ADL: HI 85.48% vs. LI 79.18% vs. CG: 98.01%; P<0.001 | Extension: HI 0.52 vs. LI 2.78 vs. CG: −1.75; P<0.001 |
| LI: 23 sessions of SPT 2–3× a wk (n=40) | TUG: HI 7.75 s vs. LI 8.67 s vs. CG: 6.63 s; P<0.001 | Flexion: HI 120.15 vs. LI 119.03 vs. CG: 139.32; P<0.001 | ||||
| SCT: HI 12.43 s vs. LI 16.49 s vs. CG: 9.68 s; P<0.001 | ||||||
| 6MW: HI 549.72 m vs. LI 494.91 m vs. CG: 655.91 m; P<0.001 | ||||||
| MVIC: HI 6.58 Nm/kg vs. LI 5.85 Nm/kg vs. CG: 9.49 Nm/kg; P<0.001 |
¶, mean difference. ROM, range of motion; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index; TUG, timed up and go; PRE, Progressive Resistance Exercise; HV, high velocity; LV, low velocity; 6MW, 6-minute walk test; PIF, Normalized Peak Isometric Force; Nm/kg, Newton-meters/kg; SCT, Stair Climbing Test; VAS, Visual Analog Scale; HI, high intensity; LI, low intensity; CG, control group; ADL, activities of daily living; Quad, Quadriceps; PS, progressive strengthening; SPT, standard physical therapy; OPT, Outpatient Physical Therapy; KOS-ADL, knee outcome survey-activities of daily living; MVIC, maximal voluntary isometric contraction; SD, standard deviation.