4.5 Article

Thigh muscle strength and endurance in patients with COPD compared with healthy controls

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 100, 期 8, 页码 1451-1457

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2005.11.001

关键词

COPD; fatigue; strength; endurance; gender-related differences; physical activity questionnaire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate thigh muscle strength and endurance in patients with COPD compared with healthy controls. Forty-two patients (26 women; 16 men) with moderate to severe COPD and 53 (29 women; 24 men) age-matched healthy controls participated in the study. The subjects were tested for maximum voluntary contractions (MVC), endurance and fatigue of the thigh muscles on an isokinetic dynamometer (KinCom (R)). Endurance was expressed as the number of attained repetitions of knee extension and muscle fatigue as a fatigue index (9). MVC in knee extension was 17% lower in female patients (P = 0.017) but no difference was found in mate patients (P = 0.56) compared to controls. MVC in knee flexion was lower both in female (51%) (P < 0.001) and mate patients (40%) (P < 0.001) compared to controls. Both female and mate patients had significantly lower muscle endurance compared to controls. Female patients had a higher FI (22.5%) than female controls (10%) (P=0.001) while no difference was found regarding FI between mate patients (15%) and mate controls (10%) (P = 0.103). The level of self-reported everyday physical activity did not differ between groups. The results showed impaired skeletal muscle function in COPD, except for MVC in knee extension in mate patients. Female patients seemed to be more prone to decrease in thigh muscle function. More focus on improving muscle strength and muscle endurance should be considered when designing pulmonary rehabilitation programs. Patients with preserved level of physical activity can be included in exercise programs and gender-related differences should be taken into account. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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