Gihoon Jung1,2,3, Chanhee Park2,3, Jongseok Hwang2,3, Joshua Sung H You2,3, Chunghwi Yi3, Woochol Joseph Choi3. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, WonKwang University SanBon Hospital, Gunpo, Korea. 2. Sports Movement Artificial Robotics Technology (SMART) Institute, Department of Physical Therapy, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While respiratory and core-postural stabilisation has recently gained a widespread acceptance to improve pulmonary function and dyspena, the therapeutic effects of and rationale underlying the use of respiratory and core-postural stabilisation in the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of abdominal breathing and respiratory and core-postural stabilisation on diaphragmatic movement and pulmonary function. METHODS:Fourteen patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomly assigned to either the respiratory and core-postural stabilisation or abdominal breathing group. All patients underwent fluoroscopy-guided chest X-ray imaging and pulmonary function tests before and after the interventions; the modified Medical Research Council questionnaire was also administered before and after the interventions. Six sessions of either intervention were consistently provided. The obtained data were assessed using independent t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank test with a significance threshold of P< 0.05. RESULTS: Respiratory and core-postural stabilisation was more effective in increasing diaphragmatic movements than abdominal breathing (P< 0.05). Pulmonary function tests revealed more significant differences in the forced vital capacity (FVC(%)predicted) only after respiratory and core-postural stabilisation (P= 0.004). The Medical Research Council questionnaire score was significantly different within the Respiratory and core-postural stabilisation group (P= 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Our novel results suggest that the effects of respiratory and core-postural stabilisation breathing on diaphragmatic movement and pulmonary function were superior to those of abdominal breathing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: While respiratory and core-postural stabilisation has recently gained a widespread acceptance to improve pulmonary function and dyspena, the therapeutic effects of and rationale underlying the use of respiratory and core-postural stabilisation in the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of abdominal breathing and respiratory and core-postural stabilisation on diaphragmatic movement and pulmonary function. METHODS: Fourteen patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomly assigned to either the respiratory and core-postural stabilisation or abdominal breathing group. All patients underwent fluoroscopy-guided chest X-ray imaging and pulmonary function tests before and after the interventions; the modified Medical Research Council questionnaire was also administered before and after the interventions. Six sessions of either intervention were consistently provided. The obtained data were assessed using independent t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank test with a significance threshold of P< 0.05. RESULTS: Respiratory and core-postural stabilisation was more effective in increasing diaphragmatic movements than abdominal breathing (P< 0.05). Pulmonary function tests revealed more significant differences in the forced vital capacity (FVC(%)predicted) only after respiratory and core-postural stabilisation (P= 0.004). The Medical Research Council questionnaire score was significantly different within the Respiratory and core-postural stabilisation group (P= 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Our novel results suggest that the effects of respiratory and core-postural stabilisation breathing on diaphragmatic movement and pulmonary function were superior to those of abdominal breathing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.