Blood flow-restricted strength training displays high functional and biological efficacy in women: a within-subject comparison with high-load strength training.

Limited data exist on the efficacy of low-load blood flow-restricted strength training (BFR), as compared directly to heavy-load strength training (HST). Here, we show that 12 wk of twice-a-week unilateral BFR [30% of one repetition maximum (1RM) to exhaustion] and HST (6-10RM) of knee extensors provide similar increases in 1RM knee extension and cross-sectional area of distal parts of musculus quadriceps femoris in nine untrained women (age 22 ± 1 yr). The two protocols resulted in similar acute increases in serum levels of human growth hormone. On the cellular level, 12 wk of BFR and HST resulted in similar shifts in muscle fiber composition in musculus vastus lateralis, evident as increased MyHC2A proportions and decreased MyHC2X proportions. They also resulted in similar changes of the expression of 29 genes involved in skeletal muscle function, measured both in a rested state following 12 wk of training and subsequent to singular training sessions. Training had no effect on myonuclei proportions. Of particular interest, 1) gross adaptations to BFR and HST were greater in individuals with higher proportions of type 2 fibers, 2) both BFR and HST resulted in approximately four-fold increases in the expression of the novel exercise-responsive gene Syndecan-4, and 3) BFR provided lesser hypertrophy than HST in the proximal half of musculus quadriceps femoris and also in CSApeak, potentially being a consequence of pressure from the tourniquet utilized to achieve blood flow restriction. In conclusion, BFR and HST of knee extensors resulted in similar adaptations in functional, physiological, and cell biological parameters in untrained women.

Comparing cost-effectiveness of X-Stop with minimally invasive decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of X-stop to minimally invasive decompression in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common indication for operative treatment in elderly. Although surgery is more costly than nonoperative treatment, health outcomes for more than 2 years were shown to be significantly better. Surgical treatment with minimally invasive decompression is widely used. X-stop is introduced as another minimally invasive technique showing good results compared with nonoperative treatment. METHODS: We enrolled 96 patients aged 50 to 85 years, with symptoms of neurogenic intermittent claudication within 250-m walking distance and 1- or 2-level lumbar spinal stenosis, randomized to either minimally invasive decompression or X-stop. Quality-adjusted life-years were based on EuroQol EQ-5D. The hospital unit costs were estimated by means of the top-down approach. Each cost unit was converted into a monetary value by dividing the overall cost by the amount of cost units produced. The analysis of costs and health outcomes is presented by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The study was terminated after a midway interim analysis because of significantly higher reoperation rate in the X-stop group (33%). The incremental cost for X-stop compared with minimally invasive decompression was &OV0556;2832 (95% confidence interval: 1886-3778), whereas the incremental health gain was 0.11 quality-adjusted life-year (95% confidence interval: -0.01 to 0.23). Based on the incremental cost and effect, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was &OV0556;25,700. CONCLUSION: The majority of the bootstrap samples displayed in the northeast corner of the cost-effectiveness plane, giving a 50% likelihood that X-stop is cost-effective at the extra cost of &OV0556;25,700 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) for a quality-adjusted life-year. The significantly higher cost of X-stop is mainly due to implant cost and the significantly higher reoperation rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.