| Literature DB >> 35148697 |
Masayoshi Oguri1, Tohru Okanishi2, Takuya Ikeguchi3, Kaoru Ogo4, Sotaro Kanai2, Yoshihiro Maegaki2, Shinichi Wada5, Takashi Himoto4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To clarify the differences in diaphragm thickness between male and female participants in healthy young adults with ultrasonography using the mean intima media thickness (IMT) method and to investigate the relationship between diaphragm thickness and respiratory pressure.Entities:
Keywords: Diaphragm thickness; Respiratory muscle strength; Spine position; Ultrasonography
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35148697 PMCID: PMC8840635 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-022-00748-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Fig. 1Representative ultrasound of the diaphragm. Diaphragm at total lung capacity (a) and functional residual capacity (b). The diaphragm (D, white bidirectional arrows) is the 3-layered structure situated deep to the intercostal (IC) muscles spanning two ribs; it is identified as the last set of parallel lines, with the pleural and peritoneal membranes overlying the less echogenic muscle. We calculated a mean of three points using the IMT software: the center of the diaphragm thickness, and two surrounding points on either side (each 10 mm from the center of the diaphragm thickness)
Baseline characteristics of 29 subjects
| Variable | Male (n = 13) | Female (n = 16) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 22.9 ± 3.8 | 23.7 ± 4.9 | 0.60 |
| Body weight (kg) | 64.2 ± 9.1 | 50.5 ± 4.6 | < 0.001 |
| Height (cm) | 174.0 ± 4.5 | 157.8 ± 4.6 | < 0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.1 ± 2.3 | 20.3 ± 1.7 | 0.29 |
| Body surface area (m2) | 1.7 ± 0.13 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | < 0.001 |
| FVC (%) | 97.6 ± 9.9 | 98.8 ± 10.5 | 0.78 |
| FVC/FEV1 (%) | 88.6 ± 4.9 | 89.2 ± 5.8 | 0.74 |
FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in one second; SD, standard deviation
Ultrasound values of right diaphragm thickness
| Variable | Male (n = 13) | Female (n = 16) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diaphragm thickness at functional residual capacity (mm) | 1.2 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.2 | < 0.001 |
| Diaphragm thickness at total lung capacity (mm) | 3.8 ± 0.8 | 3.7 ± 0.8 | 0.82 |
| Change ratio of diaphragm thickness (%) | 67.2 ± 6.2 | 57.2 ± 7.8 | < 0.001 |
Maximal respiratory pressures
| Variable (Mean ± SD) | Male (n = 13) | Female (n = 16) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximal expiratory pressure (cmH2O) | 88.2 ± 22.5 | 56.8 ± 16.2 | < 0.001 |
| Maximal inspiratory pressure (cmH2O) | 79.0 ± 23.8 | 81.1 ± 26.0 | 0.81 |
SD, standard deviation
Fig. 2Correlation between the change ratio of diaphragm thickness and other measures in males and females. Measures included % forced vital capacity, maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) or maximum expiratory pressure (MEP) for males (a, c, e), and females (b, d, f). There was a significant positive correlation between the change ratio of diaphragm thickness and % forced vital capacity or respiratory mouth pressures in males, but not in females