Labidi · Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine 2024 · controlled laboratory study · n=20

The Effects of Heat Therapy During Immobilization and Rehabilitation on Muscle Atrophy and Strength Loss at Return to Sports in Healthy Humans.

Cited 10 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Controlled trial with sham comparator; randomization is not explicitly stated in the abstract

PubMed 39444938 · doi:10.1177/23259671241281727 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

Twenty healthy men (age 33.6 ± 2.8 years) completed 4 weeks of supervised training, 2 weeks of unilateral lower leg immobilization, and 2 weeks of supervised rehabilitation before return to sports (RTS). Participants were split into two groups: whole-body heat therapy (HEAT) or sham treatment (SHAM) administered throughout immobilization and rehabilitation. Muscle strength (isometric and isokinetic), muscle architecture/volume (MRI and ultrasound), and muscle biopsies were assessed pre-immobilization, post-immobilization, and at RTS.

What was found

Maximal isometric plantarflexor strength decreased at RTS compared to pre-immobilization in SHAM (P = .027) but not in HEAT (P = .301). Isokinetic fatigue strength at RTS increased compared to pre-immobilization in HEAT (P = .039) but not in SHAM (P = .245). Pennation angle and muscle thickness decreased post-immobilization only in SHAM (P ≤ .027). Muscle cross-sectional area decreased across soleus, gastrocnemius medialis, and gastrocnemius lateralis in SHAM (all P ≤ .035), whereas in HEAT, only gastrocnemius medialis decreased. Biopsies showed increased phosphorylated FoxO in HEAT (P = .034), a non-significant decrease in phosphorylated/total NFκB ratio in HEAT (d = 0.91, P = .054), and increased caspase 3 expression post-immobilization in SHAM only (P = .004).

Why it matters

This study provides human evidence that whole-body heat therapy can mitigate immobilization-induced muscle atrophy and retain strength, likely through the downregulation of proteolytic signaling pathways (FoxO and caspase 3).

Limits

The study is limited by a small sample size (n = 20) restricted to healthy adult males. The abstract does not specify whether allocation was randomized or if outcome assessors were blinded. Exact baseline and post-intervention numerical values and confidence intervals for strength and morphological metrics were not provided in the abstract.

Cited by