Abstract
BackgroundChest physiotherapy can be an alternative to increase lung volumes through pulmonary expansion therapies, but there is still inconsistency in the literature in order to determine which device can promote a greater volume increase at the expense of a better ventilatory pattern. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the chest wall kinematics of healthy subjects submitted to the use of three different devices for pulmonary reexpansion.MethodsChest wall compartmental and operational volumes, breathing pattern and thoracoabdominal asynchrony were evaluated in 12 healthy individuals through optoelectronic plethysmography during quiet breathing, pulmonary reexpansion and recovery. Three different devices (volume-oriented incentive spirometer–IS-v; positive expiratory pressure–PEP; and incentive spirometer volume and pressure oriented–IS-vp) were administered in a random order with at least 48h between the devices.ResultsA greater volume variation in the chest wall and its compartments was observed when the IS-vp was used in comparison with the other devices (p<0.05). Furthermore, the IS-vp mobilizes a greater amount of volume accompanied by greater synchronism between the compartments when compared to IS-v (p <0.05).ConclusionThe IS-vp may be able to increase total and compartmental chest wall volumes, as well as improve synchrony among compartments when compared to IS-v and PEP devices, thus constituting an important tool for treating patients with restrictive ventilatory pattern.
Highlights
Several situations in clinical practice favor subjects developing reduced lung volumes, characterizing a restrictive respiratory pattern [1]
Chest wall compartmental and operational volumes, breathing pattern and thoracoabdominal asynchrony were evaluated in 12 healthy individuals through optoelectronic plethysmography during quiet breathing, pulmonary reexpansion and recovery
A greater volume variation in the chest wall and its compartments was observed when the incentive spirometer (IS)-vp was used in comparison with the other devices (p
Summary
Several situations in clinical practice favor subjects developing reduced lung volumes, characterizing a restrictive respiratory pattern [1]. The reduction in pulmonary volumes can promote pulmonary complications in the postoperative period and leads to worse quality of life for individuals, since simple tasks in daily life become impaired by lower ventilatory efficiency [8]. In this context, chest physiotherapy appears as a tool to increase the lung volumes of subjects who present a restrictive thorax, using pulmonary reexpansion techniques [9]. Chest physiotherapy can be an alternative to increase lung volumes through pulmonary expansion therapies, but there is still inconsistency in the literature in order to determine which device can promote a greater volume increase at the expense of a better ventilatory pattern. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the chest wall kinematics of healthy subjects submitted to the use of three different devices for pulmonary reexpansion.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
