Hohenauer · Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports 2018 · randomized controlled trial · n=19

Cold-water or partial-body cryotherapy? Comparison of physiological responses and recovery following muscle damage.

Cited 50 times in the scientific literature.

Level 2 - randomized trial

Individual randomized controlled trial

PubMed 29130570 · doi:10.1111/sms.13014 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Nineteen healthy males completed a muscle-damaging protocol (5 × 20 drop jumps) and were randomly allocated to either cold-water immersion (CWI: 10°C for 10 minutes; n = 9) or partial-body cryotherapy (PBC: -60°C for 30 seconds, -135°C for 2 minutes; n = 10). Physiological variables (thigh muscle oxygen saturation [SmO2], cutaneous vascular conductance [CVC], mean arterial pressure [MAP], and local skin temperature) were measured immediately prior and at 10-minute intervals up to 60 minutes post-treatment. Recovery variables (thigh muscle swelling, knee extensor maximum voluntary contraction [MVC], vertical jump performance [VJP], and delayed onset of muscle soreness [DOMS]) were tracked at 24-hour intervals up to 72 hours post-treatment.

What was found

Compared to PBC, CWI led to significantly greater reductions in CVC (at 30 minutes), SmO2 (at 40 minutes), and lower extremity skin temperature (thigh/shin at 60 minutes) post-treatment (all P < .05). PBC significantly reduced lower extremity skin temperature only directly post-treatment (P < .05). MAP increased significantly in both groups post-treatment (both P < .05). DOMS did not differ between groups. MVC and VJP returned to baseline in both groups after 24 hours (P > .05). The abstract reports no exact numeric values or effect sizes for the measured outcomes.

Why it matters

Although cold-water immersion causes more prolonged physiological and vascular cooling than partial-body cryotherapy, the pronounced physiological differences do not translate to superior functional recovery or reduced soreness following plyometric muscle damage.

Limits

The sample size is very small (n = 19; 9–10 per group), creating high risk of imprecision. The trial was restricted to healthy males. There was no non-cooling passive control group to establish whether either treatment differed from natural recovery. Quantitative data and confidence intervals were not reported in the abstract.

Cited by