BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The performance of manual hyperinflation by physiotherapists can be improved by the availability of a pressure manometer. The present study aimed to test whether these benefits could be maintained when the manometer is withdrawn and whether the availability of a manometer affects the pressures delivered under changing respiratory compliances. METHOD: Manual hyperinflation breaths were delivered to a test lung by student physiotherapists, with a target peak airway pressure of 30 cm H2O under control, feedback and feedback-withdrawal conditions. The breaths were delivered for three trials under each testing condition at each of three respiratory compliance settings. RESULTS: The availability of augmented feedback increased the accuracy and reduced the variability of performance; however, these improvements were not maintained when feedback was withdrawn. Changing respiratory compliance significantly affected the accuracy and variability during the control and withdrawal conditions, but the availability of a manometer negated these differences. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of a pressure manometer negates the influence of respiratory compliance on the achievement of target peak airway pressures during manual hyperinflation in the laboratory environment, however these benefits are not retained when feedback is withdrawn. Therefore, it is recommended that a pressure manometer should be routinely available during manual hyperinflation in clinical practice to optimize treatment safety and effectiveness.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The performance of manual hyperinflation by physiotherapists can be improved by the availability of a pressure manometer. The present study aimed to test whether these benefits could be maintained when the manometer is withdrawn and whether the availability of a manometer affects the pressures delivered under changing respiratory compliances. METHOD: Manual hyperinflation breaths were delivered to a test lung by student physiotherapists, with a target peak airway pressure of 30 cm H2O under control, feedback and feedback-withdrawal conditions. The breaths were delivered for three trials under each testing condition at each of three respiratory compliance settings. RESULTS: The availability of augmented feedback increased the accuracy and reduced the variability of performance; however, these improvements were not maintained when feedback was withdrawn. Changing respiratory compliance significantly affected the accuracy and variability during the control and withdrawal conditions, but the availability of a manometer negated these differences. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of a pressure manometer negates the influence of respiratory compliance on the achievement of target peak airway pressures during manual hyperinflation in the laboratory environment, however these benefits are not retained when feedback is withdrawn. Therefore, it is recommended that a pressure manometer should be routinely available during manual hyperinflation in clinical practice to optimize treatment safety and effectiveness.