The Influence Of Time On Determining Blood Flow Restriction Pressure

Jw, Ingram; Sl, Buckner; Sj, Dankel; Br, Counts; Jg, Mouser; T, Abe; Gc, Laurentino; Jp, Loenneke

doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000488105.70964.33

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, it is recommended that individual occlusion pressures be calculated as a percentage of the total arterial occlusion pressure (AOP), with individual protocols ranging from 60% to 80%. 35,40,69,84 The gold standard method of measuring AOP and true occlusion is Doppler ultrasound, 6,9,29,56,66 although recent investigations have begun to assess the feasibility of pulse oximetry as a lower maintenance alternative. 77,84 A previous method in the literature attempted to predict the AOP as a percentage of the brachial systolic blood pressure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perioperative Blood Flow Restriction Rehabilitation in Patients Undergoing ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Patel

Kym

et al. 2020

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training has attracted attention as a potentially effective method of perioperative clinical rehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures. Purpose: To (1) compare the effectiveness of low-load BFR training in conjunction with a standard rehabilitation protocol, pre- and postoperatively, and non-BFR interventions in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and (2) evaluate protocols for implementing BFR perioperatively for patients undergoing ACLR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A systematic review of the 3 medical literature databases was conducted to identify all level 1 and 2 clinical trials published since 1990 on BFR in patients undergoing ACLR. Patient demographics from included studies were pooled. Outcome data were documented, including muscle strength and size, and perceived pain and exertion. A descriptive analysis of outcomes from BFR and non-BFR interventions was performed. Results: A total of 6 studies (154 patients; 66.2% male; mean ± SD age, 24.2 ± 3.68 years) were included. Of these, 2 studies examined low-load BFR as a preoperative intervention, 1 of which observed a significant increase in muscle isometric endurance ( P = .014), surface electromyography of the vastus medialis ( P < .001), and muscle blood flow to the vastus lateralis at final follow-up ( P < .001) as compared with patients undergoing sham BFR. Four studies investigated low-load BFR as a postoperative intervention, and they observed significant benefits in muscle hypertrophy, as measured by cross-sectional area; strength, as measured by extensor torque; and subjective outcomes, as measured by subjective knee pain during session, over traditional low-load resistance training (all P < .05). BFR occlusion periods ranged from 3 to 5 minutes, with rest periods ranging from 45 seconds to 3 minutes. Conclusion: This systematic review found evidence on the topic of BFR rehabilitation after ACLR to be sparse and heterogeneous likely because of the relatively recent onset of its popularity. While a few authors have demonstrated the potential strength and hypertrophy benefits of perioperative BFR, future investigations with standardized outcomes, long-term follow-up, and more robust sample sizes are required to draw more definitive conclusions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perioperative Blood Flow Restriction Rehabilitation in Patients Undergoing ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Patel

Kym

et al. 2020

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The blood pressure should be recorded as an average of the last two readings. 28 Additionally, a study found that the LOP in the upper arm changed by up to 20 mmHg within a day and between days, and the authors of the study emphasized the necessity of taking multiple LOP measurements to account for the influence of time 30 . The relative intra-rater (test-retest), intra-day reliability of the HH oximeter (ICC = 0.72) was moderate and slightly lower than that of the Doppler ultrasound (ICC=0.79).…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Validity and Reliability of the Handheld Oximeter to Determine Limb Occlusion Pressure for Blood Flow Restriction Exercise in the Lower Extremity

Brekke

Sørensen

Buhr

et al. 2020

Intl J Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The limb occlusion pressure (LOP) is determined to calculate the relative LOP. The different levels of relative LOP (percentage of LOP) influence the treatment effect and perceived discomfort during low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) strength training. Thus, determining the LOP is of the utmost importance when using BFR in clinical practice. Purpose:The objective of this study was to investigate the concurrent validity and intra-rater (test-retest), intra-day reliability of an inexpensive, portable, easy-to-use handheld (HH) oximeter compared to a high-resolution Doppler ultrasound scanner in detecting LOP in the lower extremity. Study design: Cross-sectional validity and reliability studyMethods: Two raters who were blinded from each other simultaneously assessed 50 healthy participants (mean age of 25.8 years). A 20 cm-wide thigh cuff with an attached sphygmomanometer was inflated until the raters independently registered the LOP with the HH oximeter and the Doppler ultrasound scanner. The test session was repeated once after a five-minute time interval. Results:The HH oximeter recorded a non-significantly higher LOP than the Doppler ultrasound scanner, with a mean difference of 6.3 mmHg in the test session (95% limits of agreement (LoA): -16.2 to 28.8, p = 0.13) and 5.4 mmHg in the retest session (95% LoA: -13.3 to 24.0, p = 0.10). The intra-rater reliability for both devices was moderate (ICC = 0.72-0.79). The measured LOP was significantly lower (p < 0.005) in the retest session than in the test session for both the HH oximeter (mean difference: -5.7 mmHg) and the Doppler ultrasound scanner (mean difference: -4.8 mmHg).

show abstract

The Influence Of Time On Determining Blood Flow Restriction Pressure

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Perioperative Blood Flow Restriction Rehabilitation in Patients Undergoing ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Perioperative Blood Flow Restriction Rehabilitation in Patients Undergoing ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

The Validity and Reliability of the Handheld Oximeter to Determine Limb Occlusion Pressure for Blood Flow Restriction Exercise in the Lower Extremity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About