Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Two theories explaining the mechanism for the manifestation of cough without wheeze in patients with cough variant asthma (CVA) are either a higher wheezing threshold or a milder degree of airway hyperresponsiveness. A significant proportion of patients diagnosed as having CVA eventually develop wheezing. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this change in the manifestation of asthma was associated with a decrease in wheezing threshold and/or an increase in airway hyperresponsiveness.Thirty-six children (7±15 yrs) with CVA were prospectively studied for 4 yrs. Bronchial provocation tests with methacholine using the stepwise increasing concentration technique were performed annually to measure the provocative cumulative dose producing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (PD20). Wheezing thresholds were additionally determined at the initiation of and the end of the study (development of wheezing, or after 4 yrs).Sixteen (Group 1) of 29 patients available for the follow-up developed clinical wheezing during the period; 13 patients (Group 2) stayed as CVA or their cough resolved. There was no significant change in wheezing thresholds from the initiation to the end of the study (Group 1 The results suggest that an increase in airway hyperresponsiveness, but not a decrease in wheezing threshold, may have a pathogenetic role in the development of wheezing during the course of cough variant asthma in childhood. Eur Respir J 1999; 14: 302±308.

Increases in the valgus angle and moment of the knee joint and higher lateral gastrocnemius activity during the late period showed an association with ACL injury risk factors during side-cutting, and higher lateral gastrocnemius activity during the early period showed an association with injury risk factors during cross-cutting.

Introduction There is no comparative study regarding surgical outcomes between microsurgical extraforaminal decompression (MeFD) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of LFS using two different techniques: MeFD alone or PLIF. Methods For the purposes of this study, a prospectively collected observational cohort study was conducted. Fiftyfive patients diagnosed with LFS who were scheduled to undergo spinal surgery were included in this study. According to the chosen surgical technique, patients were assigned to either the MeFD group (n = 25) or the PLIF group (n = 30). The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 1 year after surgery. Results The baseline patient characteristics and preoperative ODI score, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and Short Form-36 score were not significantly different between the two groups. At 12 months postoperative, the mean ODI score in the MeFD and PLIF groups was 25.68 ± 14.49 and 27.20 ± 12.56, respectively, and the 95 % confidence interval (-9.76-6.73) was within the predetermined margin of equivalence. The overall ODI score and VAS scores for back and leg pain did not differ significantly over the follow-up assessment time between the two groups. However, the ODI score and VAS scores for back and leg pain improved significantly over time after surgery in both groups. In the MeFD group, revision surgery was required in three patients (12 %). Conclusions This study demonstrated that MeFD alone and PLIF have equivalent outcomes regarding improvement in disability at 1 year after surgery. However, the higher rate of revision surgery in the MeFD group should emphasize the technically optimal amount of decompression.