| Literature DB >> 19606246 |
Eli Forti1, Daniela Ike, Marcela Barbalho-Moulim, Irineu Rasera, Dirceu Costa.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bariatric surgery has become increasingly more recommended for the treatment of morbidly obese individuals for whom it is possible to identify co-morbidities other than alterations in pulmonary function. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of conventional chest physiotherapy (CCP) and of conventional physiotherapy associated with transcutaneous electrical diaphragmatic stimulation (CCP+TEDS) on pulmonary function and respiratory muscle strength in patients who have undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.Entities:
Keywords: Bariatric surgery; Electric stimulation; Physiotherapy; Respiratory muscle strength; Spirometry
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19606246 PMCID: PMC2710443 DOI: 10.1590/S1807-59322009000700013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) ISSN: 1807-5932 Impact factor: 2.365
Means, standard deviations and statistical results for the pulmonary flow measurements: forced vital capacity (FVC), forced exhaling volume in the first second (FEV1), FEV1/FVC and the peak of exhaling flow (PEF) for both the experimental and predicted values, for the group treated with conventional chest physiotherapy (CCP) and the group treated with CCP + transcutaneous electric diaphragmatic stimulation (TEDS), in three evaluations.
| Variables | Intervention | Preoperative | 15 days | 30 days | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FVC (L) | CCP | Experimental
| 3.1 ± 0,4
| 3.2 ± 0.4
| 3.2 ± 0.4
|
| CCP+TEDS | Experimental
| 3.2 ± 0.5
| 3.1 ± 0.6
| 3.3 ± 0.5
| |
| FEV1 (L) | CCP | 2.6 ± 0.4
| 2.6 ± 0.3
| 2.6 ± 0.3
| |
| 2.7 ± 0.5
| 2.6 ± 0.5
| 2.7 ± 0.4
| |||
| CCP | 0.8 ± 0.1
| 0.8 ± 0.01
| 0.8 ± 0.00
| ||
| 0.8 ± 0.00
| 0.8 ± 0,00
| 0.8 ± 0.00
| |||
| 6.4 ± 1.2
| 6.5 ± 0.8
| 6.6 ± 0.8
| |||
| 6.55 ±1,3
| 6.4 ±1.4
| 6.7 ± 1.3
|
There was no statistical difference between any of the variables
Means, standard deviations and statistical results for the measurements of slow vital capacity (SVC) and maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) for both the experimental and predicted values, for the group treated with conventional chest physiotherapy (CCP) and the group treated with CCP + transcutaneous electric diaphragmatic stimulation (TEDS), in three evaluations.
| Variables | Intervention | Preoperative | 15 days | 30 days | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVC (L) | CCP | Experimental
| 3.0 ± 0.4
| 3.1 ± 0.4
| 3.2 ± 0.4
|
| CCP+TEDS | 3.2 ± 0.5
| 3.1 ± 0.5
| 3.3 ± 0.5
| ||
| MVV (L/min) | CCP | 101 ± 18
| 105 ± 14
| 104 ± 16
| |
| 107 ± 22
| 104 ± 27
| 111 ± 25
|
There was no statistical difference between any of the variables
Means and standard deviations in values obtained and statistical results for the measurements of MIP and MEP for the group treated with conventional chest physiotherapy (CCP) and the group treated with CCP + transcutaneous electric diaphragmatic stimulation (TEDS), in three evaluations
| Pressures | Preoperative | 15 days | 30 days | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −84.3 ± 20.3 | −77.9 ± 17.2 | −77.9 ± 16 | ||
| −84 ± 21.7 | −81.8 ± 21.5 | −87.7 ± 22.8 | ||
| 100.2 ± 18.1 | 87.9 ± 16. 9 | 85.9 ± 16.5 | ||
| 95.4 ± 21.9 | 83.6 ± 17.6 | 87.2 ± 19.8 |
difference significant between the 1st and 2nd evaluations (p≤0,5)
difference significant between the 1st and 3rd evaluations (p≤0,5)