| Ho S,C., Chiang L.L., Cheng H.F., Lin H.C., Sheng D.F., Kuo H.P., Lin H.C. |
------>authors3_c=None ------>paper_class1=1 ------>Impact_Factor=None ------>paper_class3=1 ------>paper_class2=1 ------>vol=23 ------>confirm_bywho=chlin ------>insert_bywho=llchiang ------>Jurnal_Rank=None ------>authors4_c=None ------>comm_author= ------>patent_EDate=None ------>authors5_c=None ------>publish_day=None ------>paper_class2Letter=None ------>page2=79 ------>medlineContent= ------>unit=E0400 ------>insert_date=20011011 ------>iam=2 ------>update_date= ------>author=??? ------>change_event=5 ------>ISSN=None ------>authors_c=None ------>score=500 ------>journal_name=Chang Gung Medical J 2000; 23: 73-79 ------>paper_name=The Effect of incentive spirometry on chest expansion and breathing work in patients with chronic obstructive airway diseases. Comparison of two methods. ------>confirm_date=20030526 ------>tch_id=090054 ------>pmid=10835801 ------>page1=73 ------>fullAbstract=BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive airway diseases (COAD), characterized by mucus hypersecretion, lead to exercise intolerance. Incentive spirometry has been used to prevent postoperative pulmonary atelectasis. METHODS: To compare the efficacy of two incentive spirometers, Coach (volume-oriented) and Triflo (flow-oriented), in the work of breathing in COAD patients, 22 patients were randomized in this study: 12 patients (Triflo-II group) initially used Triflo-II for 10 minutes and then Coach for the same period. In contrast, the Coach group, including 10 patients, started with Coach followed by Triflo-II. After receiving incentive spirometry, lung expansion and work of breathing were assessed. RESULTS: Patients in the Coach group significantly increased chest wall expansion (p = 0.041), as compared with patients using Triflo-II. Similarly, there was also a significantly increased abdominal wall expansion in the Coach group (p = 0.0056), compared with that in the Triflo-II group. The need of accessory muscle assistance for breathing in the Coach group was significantly less than in the Triflo-II group (p = 0.047). It was easier for patients in the Coach group to start a breath (p = 0.0058) than for those in the Triflo-II group. For the entire group, 17 patients (77.3%) preferred Coach to assist their breathing, and only 4 patients (18.2%) favored Triflo-II. CONCLUSION: COAD patients achieved a larger expansion of the chest and abdomen with a Coach device. Our data provide a good rationale for an outcome study on the use of incentive spirometer in COAD patients. ------>tmu_sno=None ------>sno=4228 ------>authors2=None ------>authors3=None ------>authors4=None ------>authors5=None ------>authors6=None ------>authors6_c=None ------>authors=Ho S,C., Chiang L.L., Cheng H.F., Lin H.C., Sheng D.F., Kuo H.P., Lin H.C. ------>delete_flag=0 ------>SCI_JNo=None ------>authors2_c=None ------>publish_area=None ------>updateTitle=The effect of incentive spirometry on chest expansion and breathing work in patients with chronic obstructive airway diseases: comparison of two methods. ------>language=2 ------>check_flag= ------>submit_date= ------>country=None ------>no= ------>patent_SDate=None ------>update_bywho= ------>publish_year=2000 ------>submit_flag= ------>publish_month=None |