4.3 Article

Maximal static mouth respiratory pressure in spinal cord injured patients: correlation with motor level

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 45, 期 8, 页码 569-575

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101998

关键词

spinal cord injury; maximal respiratory pressures; lung function tests

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study design: Transversal. Objectives: The few studies concerning maximal static mouth respiratory pressures in patients with spinal cord lesions suggest a marked reduction. We studied the correlation of these parameters with the motor level of injury. Setting: Rehabilitation Center, Brasiliaa/DF, Brazil. Methods: One hundred and thirty-one patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (C4-L3) were recruited. The participants were assessed by standard spirometry and maximal static mouth respiratory pressure. Results: Forced vital capacity was most reduced in tetraplegics ( subgroup C4-C5, 49% 725 predicted) and increase successively for each descending subgroup (C6-C8, 61% 722 predicted; T1-T6, 70% 715 predicted), becoming normal in low paraplegia (T7-L3, 84% 715 predicted). There is no evidence of an obstructive disturbance throughout all groups. The lowest average percent predicted of maximal static inspiratory pressure (MIP) was in the subgroup C4-C5 (50% 723). The average percent predicted of maximal static expiratory pressure ( MEP) improved from 19% 714 in the C4-C5 subgroup to 51% 719 for T7-L3 subgroup. The average percent predicted of all participants for MIP was 74% 730 and for MEP was 37% 721. In patients with complete motor lesion, the correlation with the level of injury was stronger for MEP ( r 0.81, P<0.0001; r 2 0.65) than for MIP ( r =0.62, P =0.004; r 2 =0.38). No correlation was found among incomplete motor lesion patients. Conclusions: The linear regression equations for the relationship of percent predicted MIP or MEP to level of injury are applicable only to complete motor lesions and may be useful to establish normative association between them.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据