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 study. METHODS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: The HH oximeter is a valid and reliable measuring device for determining the LOP in the lower extremity in healthy adults. The authors recommend performing at least two LOP measurements with a one-minute rest interval. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2, Validity and reliability study.
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 study. METHODS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: The HH oximeter is a valid and reliable measuring device for determining the LOP in the lower extremity in healthy adults. The authors recommend performing at least two LOP measurements with a one-minute rest interval. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2, Validity and reliability study.
Authors: Jeremy P Loenneke; Christopher A Fahs; Lindy M Rossow; Vanessa D Sherk; Robert S Thiebaud; Takashi Abe; Debra A Bemben; Michael G Bemben Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Marty D Spranger; Abhinav C Krishnan; Phillip D Levy; Donal S O'Leary; Scott A Smith Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Manoel E Lixandrão; Carlos Ugrinowitsch; Gilberto Laurentino; Cleiton A Libardi; André Y Aihara; Fabiano N Cardoso; Valmor Tricoli; Hamilton Roschel Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Stephen D Patterson; Luke Hughes; Paul Head; Stuart Warmington; Christopher Brandner Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Gilberto C Laurentino; Jeremy P Loenneke; James G Mouser; Samuel L Buckner; Brittany R Counts; Scott J Dankel; Matthew B Jessee; Kevin T Mattocks; Wagner Iared; Lucas D Tavares; Emerson L Teixeira; Valmor Tricoli Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Luke Hughes; Owen Jeffries; Mark Waldron; Ben Rosenblatt; Conor Gissane; Bruce Paton; Stephen D Patterson Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Muhammad J Abbas; Malik E Dancy; Erick M Marigi; Lafi S Khalil; Toufic R Jildeh; Patrick J Buckley; Javair Gillett; William Burgos; Kelechi R Okoroha Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2022-05-28