4.6 Article

Resistive inspiratory muscle training: Its effectiveness in patients with acute complete cervical cord injury

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 81, Issue 6, Pages 752-756

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2000.5619

Keywords

breathing exercises; tetraplegia; spinal cord injuries; resistive inspiratory muscle training; respiratory function; rehabilitation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate if resistive inspiratory muscle training (RIMT) can improve lung function in patients with complete tetraplegia within half a year after trauma. Design: A prospective study. The experimental patients received training with a Diemolding Healthcare Division inspiratory muscle trainer for 15 to 20 minutes per session, twice per day, 7 days a week for 6 weeks. Setting: Hospital-based rehabilitation units. Patients: Twenty patients who were in their first 6 months of complete cervical cord injury were randomly enrolled into RIMT(10 patients) and control(10 patients) groups. Main Outcome Measure: Spirometry, lung volume test, maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, and modified Borg scale measurements at rest were performed before training and at the end of 6 weeks of training. Results: Most of the pulmonary parameters showed statistically significant improvements within the RIMT and control groups, but the improvements were greater in the RIMT group. In addition, the improvements in total lung capacity, total lung capacity predicted percentage. viral capacity, minute ventilation, forced expiratory volume in 1 second predicted percentage, and the resting Borg scale in the RIMT group showed significantly greater improvement. Conclusion: RIMT can improve ventilatory function, respiratory endurance, and the perceived difficulty of breathing in patients with complete cervical spinal cord injury within half a year after trauma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available