ORIGINAL PAPER
Comparisons between chest trunk mobilization with sustained maximum inspiration and flow incentive spirometry on chest expansion, respiratory muscle strength, and functional exercise capacity in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery
 
More details
Hide details
1
Cardiac Rehabilitation Center, Vajira Excellence Center, Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand
 
2
Physical Therapy Department, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand
 
3
Cardiothoracic Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand
 
 
Submission date: 2023-04-14
 
 
Acceptance date: 2023-09-21
 
 
Publication date: 2024-12-06
 
 
Corresponding author
Sasipa Buranapuntalug   

Physical Therapy Department, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Thammasat University, 99 Phahonyothin Road, Khlong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Pathumthani, Thailand
 
 
Physiother Quart. 2024;32(4):42-48
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Chest trunk mobilization with sustained maximum inspiration (SMI) and flow incentive spirometry (flow IS) are breathing techniques that mostly apply to patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of chest trunk mobilization with SMI and flow IS on chest expansion, respiratory muscle strength, and functional exercise capacity in patients undergoing VATS.

Methods:
Sixty VATS patients were randomly allocated into chest trunk mobilization with SMI (n = 30) and flow IS (n = 30) groups. Each group performed a physical therapy program preoperatively and 4 days post-operatively. Chest expansion at upper, middle, and lower levels, inspiratory and expiratory muscle strengths, and functional exercise capacity were determined at pre- and post-VATS.

Results:
In both groups, chest expansion at all levels, expiratory muscle strength, and distance of the 6MWT significantly increased (p < 0.05) post-operatively compared to pre-operative assessments, although there was no significant difference between groups. In addition, inspiratory muscle strength significantly improved from baseline in both groups (p < 0.05), but the flow IS group showed a greater increase than the chest trunk mobilization with the SMI group (78.17 ± 24.16 and 65.57 ± 20.39 cmH2O, respectively, p < 0.05).

Conclusions:
Chest trunk mobilization with SMI and flow IS can improve chest expansion at all levels, as well as respiratory muscle strength and the distance of the 6MWT. However, flow IS enhances inspiratory muscle strength to a greater extent than chest trunk mobilization with SMI. Ultimately, both techniques can be applied effectively in patients undergoing VATS.

REFERENCES (27)
1.
Shah RD, D’Amico TA. Modern impact of video assisted thoracic surgery. J Thorac Dis. 2014;6(Suppl 6):631–6; doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.08.02.
 
2.
Bertani A, Ferrari P, Terzo D, Russo E, Burgio G, De Monte L, Raffaele F, Droghetti A, Crisci R. A comprehensive protocol for physiokinesis therapy and enhanced recovery after surgery in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(Suppl 4):499–511; doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.02.55.
 
3.
Kendall F, Abreu P, Pinho P, Oliveira J, Bastos P. The role of physiotherapy in patients undergoing pulmonary surgery for lung cancer. A literature review. Rev Port Pneumol. 2017;23(6):343–51; doi: 10.1016/j.rppnen.2017.05.003.
 
4.
Pu Q, Ma L, Mei J, Zhu Y, Che G, Lin Y, Wu Z, Wang Y, Kou Y, Liu L. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus posterolateral thoracotomy lobectomy: a more patient-friendly approach on post-operative pain, pulmonary function and shoulder function. Thorac Cancer. 2013;4(1):84–9; doi: 10.1111/j.1759-7714.2012.00153.x.
 
5.
Nomori H, Horio H, Fuyuno G, Kobayashi R, Yashima H. Respiratory muscle strength after lung resection with special reference to age and procedures of thoracotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1996;10(5):352–8; doi: 10.1016/s1010-7940(96)80094-7.
 
6.
Yamaguti WP, Sakamoto ET, Panazzolo D, Peixoto Cda C, Cerri GG, Albuquerque AL. Diaphragmatic mobility in healthy subjects during incentive spirometry with a flow-oriented device and with a volume-oriented device. J Bras Pneumol. 2010;36(6):738–45; doi: 10.1590/s1806-37132010000600011.
 
7.
Liu C-J, Tsai W-C, Chu C-C, Muo C-H, Chung W-S. Is incentive spirometry beneficial for patients with lung cancer receiving video-assisted thoracic surgery? BMC Pulm Med. 2019;19(1):121; doi: 10.1186/s12890-019-0885-8.
 
8.
Mendes LPS, Teixeira LS, da Cruz LJ, Vieira DSR, Parreira VF. Sustained maximal inspiration has similar effects compared to incentive spirometers. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2019;261:67–74; doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2019.01.006.
 
9.
Agostini P, Singh S. Incentive spirometry following thoracic surgery: what should we be doing? Physiotherapy. 2009;95(2):76–82; doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2008.11.003.
 
10.
Tomich GM, França DC, Diório ACM, Britto RR, Sampaio RF, Parreira VF. Breathing pattern, thoracoabdominal motion and muscular activity during three breathing exercises. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2007;40(10):1409–17; doi: 10.1590/s0100-879x2006005000165.
 
11.
Lunardi AC, Porras DC, Barbosa RC, Paisani DM, Mar­ques da Silva CC, Tanaka C, Carvalho CRF. Effect of volume-oriented versus flow-oriented incentive spirometry on chest wall volumes, inspiratory muscle activity, and thoracoabdominal synchrony in the elderly. Respir Care. 2014;59(3):420–6; doi: 10.4187/respcare.02665.
 
12.
Gayathiri T, Anandhi D. Efficacy of incentive spirometry in expiratory muscle training following abdominal surgery. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2021;14(1):335–41; doi: 10.13005/bpj/2131.
 
13.
Restrepo RD, Wettstein R, Wittnebel L, Tracy M. Incentive spirometry: 2011. Respir Care. 2011;56(10):1600–4; doi: 10.4187/respcare.01471.
 
14.
American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society. ATS/ERS Statement on respiratory muscle testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(4):518–624; doi: 10.1164/rccm.166.4.518.
 
15.
Caruso P, Albuquerque AL, Santana PV, Cardenas LZ, Ferreira JG, Prina E, Trevizan PF, Pereira MC, Iamonti V, Pletsch R, Macchione MC, Carvalho CRR. Diagnostic methods to assess inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength. J Bras Pneumol. 2015;41(2):110–23; doi: 10.1590/S1806-37132015000004474.
 
16.
Dimitriadis Z, Kapreli E, Konstantinidou I, Oldham J, Strim­­pakos N. Test/retest reliability of maximum mouth pressure measurements with the MicroRPM in healthy volunteers. Respir Care. 2011;56(6):776–82; doi: 10.4187/respcare.00783.
 
17.
Bockenhauer SE, Chen H, Julliard KN, Weedon J. Measuring thoracic excursion: reliability of the cloth tape measure technique. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2007;107(5):191–6; doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2007.107.5.191.
 
18.
Ambrosino N, Scano G. Dyspnea and its measurement. Breathe. 2004 1;1(2):100–7; doi: 10.1183/18106838.0102.100.
 
19.
Holland AE, Spruit MA, Troosters T, Puhan MA, Pepin V, Saey D, McCormack MC, Carlin BW, Sciurba FC, Pitta F, Wanger J, MacIntyre N, Kaminsky DA, Culver BH, Revill SM, Hernandes NA, Andrianopoulos V, Camillo CA, Mitchell KE, Lee AL, Hill CJ, Singh SJ. An official European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society technical standard: field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(6):1428–46; doi: 10.1183/09031936.00150314.
 
20.
ATS Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories. ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(1):111–7; doi: 10.1164/rccm.166/1/111.
 
21.
Renault JA, Costa-Val R, Rosseti MB, Neto MH. Comparison between deep breathing exercises and incentive spirometry after CABG surgery. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc. 2009;24(2):165–72; doi: 10.1590/S0102-76382009000200012.
 
22.
Romanini W, Muller AP, Carvalho KAT, Olandoski M, Faria-Neto JR, Mendes FL, Sardetto EA, da Costa FDA, Guarita-Souza LC. The effects of intermittent positive pressure and incentive spirometry in the post-operative of myocardial revascularization. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2007;89(2):94–9; doi: 10.1590/s0066-782x2007001400006.
 
23.
Alaparthi GK, Augustine AJ, Anand R, Mahale A. Comparison of diaphragmatic breathing exercise, volume and flow incentive spirometry, on diaphragm excursion and pulmonary function in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Minim Invasive Surg. 2016;2016:1967532; doi: 10.1155/2016/1967532.
 
24.
Ho SC, Chiang LL, Cheng HF, Lin HC, Sheng DF, Kuo HP, Lin HC. The effect of incentive spirometry on chest expansion and breathing work in patients with chronic obstructive airway diseases: comparison of two methods. Chang Gung Med J. 2000;23(2):73–9.
 
25.
Metin B, Yıldırım Ş, İntepe YS, Ede H, Yıldırım E, Sipahi M, Ekim M, Ekim H. Comparison of different respiratory exercise methods in patients with chest tubes for spontaneous pneumothorax. Turk J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;24(4):717–21; doi: 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2016.12010.
 
26.
Kumar AS, Alaparthi GK, Augustine AJ, Pazhyaottayil ZC, Ramakrishna A, Krishnakumar SK. Comparison of flow and volume incentive spirometry on pulmonary function and exercise tolerance in open abdominal surgery: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(1):KC01–6; doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/16164.7064.
 
27.
Wise RA, Brown CD. Minimal clinically important differences in the six-minute walk test and the incremental shuttle walking test. COPD. 2005;2(1):125–9; doi: 10.1081/copd-200050527.
 
eISSN:2544-4395
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top