scholarly journals THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE HANDHELD OXIMETER TO DETERMINE LIMB OCCLUSION PRESSURE FOR BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION EXERCISE IN THE LOWER EXTREMITY

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 783-791
Author(s):  
Anders Falk Brekke ◽  
Anders Nordahl Sørensen ◽  
Christel Buhr ◽  
Íris O. Johannesdottír ◽  
Thomas Linding Jakobsen
2015 ◽  
Vol 115 (12) ◽  
pp. 2471-2480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoel E. Lixandrão ◽  
Carlos Ugrinowitsch ◽  
Gilberto Laurentino ◽  
Cleiton A. Libardi ◽  
André Y. Aihara ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
William Neil Morley ◽  
Shane Ferth ◽  
Mathew Ian Bergens Debenham ◽  
Matthew Boston ◽  
Geoffrey Alonzo Power ◽  
...  

Despite compelling muscular structure and function changes resulting from blood flow restricted (BFR) resistance training, mechanisms of action remain poorly characterized. Alterations in tissue O2 saturation (TSI%) and metabolites are potential drivers of observed changes, but their relationships with degree of occlusion pressure are unclear. We examined local TSI% and blood lactate (BL) concentration during BFR training to failure using different occlusion pressures on strength, hypertrophy, and muscular endurance over an 8-week training period. Twenty participants (11M:9F) trained 3/wk for 8wk using high pressure (100% resting limb occlusion pressure, LOP, 20%1RM), moderate pressure (50% LOP, 20%1RM), or traditional resistance training (70%1RM). Strength, size, and muscular endurance were measured pre/post training. TSI% and BL were quantified during a training session. Despite overall increases, no group preferentially increased strength, hypertrophy, or muscular endurance (p>0.05). Neither TSI% nor BL concentration differed between groups (p>0.05). Moderate pressure resulted in greater accumulated deoxygenation stress (TSI%*time) (-6352±3081, -3939±1835, -2532±1349 au for moderate pressure, high pressure, and TRT, p=0.018). We demonstrate that BFR training to task-failure elicits similar strength, hypertrophy, and muscular endurance changes to traditional resistance training. Further, varied occlusion pressure does not impact these outcomes, nor elicit changes in TSI% or BL concentrations. Novelty Bullets • Training to task failure with low-load blood flow restriction elicits similar improvements to traditional resistance training, regardless of occlusion pressure. • During blood flow restriction, altering occlusion pressure does not proportionally impact tissue O2 saturation nor blood lactate concentrations


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 263502542110326
Author(s):  
Steven R. Dayton ◽  
Simon J. Padanilam ◽  
Tyler C. Sylvester ◽  
Michael J. Boctor ◽  
Vehniah K. Tjong

Background: Blood flow restriction (BFR) training restricts arterial inflow and venous outflow from the extremity and can produce gains in muscle strength at low loads. Low-load training reduces joint stress and decreases cardiovascular risk when compared with high-load training, thus making BFR an excellent option for many patients requiring rehabilitation. Indications: Blood flow restriction has shown clinical benefit in a variety of patient populations including healthy patients as well as those with osteoarthritis, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, polymyositis/dermatomyositis, and Achilles tendon rupture. Technique Description: This video demonstrates BFR training in 3 clinical areas: upper extremity resistance training, lower extremity resistance training, and low-intensity cycling. All applications of BFR first require determination of total occlusion pressure. Upper extremity training requires inflating the tourniquet to 50% of total occlusion pressure, while lower extremity exercises use 80% of total occlusion pressure. Low-load resistance training exercises follow a specific repetition scheme: 30 reps followed by a 30-second rest and then 3 sets of 15 reps with 30-seconds rest between each. During cycle training, 80% total occlusion pressure is used as the patient cycles for 15 minutes without rest. Results: Augmenting low-load resistance training with BFR increases muscle strength when compared with low-load resistance alone. In addition, low-load BFR has demonstrated an increase in muscle mass greater than low-load training alone and equivalent to high-load training absent BFR. A systematic review determined the safety of low-load training with BFR is comparable to traditional high-intensity resistance training. The most common adverse effects include exercise intolerance, discomfort, and dull pain which are also frequent in patients undergoing traditional resistance training. Severe adverse effects including deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and rhabdomyolysis are exceedingly rare, less than 0.006% according to a national survey. Patients undergoing BFR rehabilitation experience less perceived exertion and demonstrate decreased pain scores compared with high-load resistance training. Conclusion: Blood flow restriction training is an effective alternative to high-load resistance training for patients requiring musculoskeletal rehabilitation for multiple disease processes as well as in the perioperative setting. Blood flow restriction has been shown to be a safe training modality when managed by properly trained physical therapists and athletic trainers.


2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernanda Lima-Soares ◽  
Kassiana A. Pessoa ◽  
Christian E. Torres Cabido ◽  
Jakob Lauver ◽  
Jason Cholewa ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (5S) ◽  
pp. 717-718
Author(s):  
Kevin T. Mattocks ◽  
Matthew B. Jessee ◽  
Brittany R. Counts ◽  
Samuel L. Buckner ◽  
J Grant Mouser ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Eric N. Bowman ◽  
Rami Elshaar ◽  
Karen Mohr ◽  
Drew Watanabe ◽  
Greg Jue ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0033
Author(s):  
Eric N. Bowman ◽  
Rami El-shaar ◽  
Heather Milligan ◽  
Greg Jue ◽  
Karen Mohr ◽  
...  

Objectives: Blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy consists of low-intensity exercise performed under reduced venous return due to an inflatable tourniquet. This produces similar physiologic and clinical effects to high-intensity routines with less joint and tissue stress. Postoperative patients may benefit from more efficient rehabilitation. Proximal and distal effects of BFR have been evaluated, however, minimal literature exists on its use in orthopaedic conditions. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of low-intensity BFR therapy both proximal and distal, in the upper and lower extremities. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial of healthy subjects completing a standardized 6-week course of BFR therapy. Subjects were randomized to BFR therapy on one extremity or to a control group. Subjects were excluded for cardiac, pulmonary, or hematologic disease, pregnancy, or previous surgery in the extremity. Data collected at baseline and completion included: limb circumferences, isokinetic, and manual strength testing. Results: Forty subjects completed the protocol. Average age was 27.7 years; 54% were female. For both upper and lower extremity groups, a statistically significant increase was observed in manual and isokinetic strength both proximal and distal to the BFR tourniquet when compared to both the non-tourniquet extremity and the control group (p<0.05). Limb circumference significantly increased in the upper (p<0.01) and lower extremities (p=0.02). A significant increase in manual strength was noted in shoulder abduction and scaption, and hip extension and abduction even in the non-tourniquet BFR extremity compared to the control group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Low-intensity BFR therapy led to greater increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy. Similar strengthening effects were seen in proximal and distal muscle groups. Strength increases in the contralateral BFR extremity may corroborate a systemic effect. This study provides data to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of BFR therapy in operative and non-operative orthopaedic conditions. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document