ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A living donor transplant improves the survival and quality of life of a transplant patient. However, the impact of transplantation on postoperative lung function and respiratory muscular strength in kidney donors remains unknown.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength, quality of life and the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in kidney donors undergoing nephrectomy.METHOD: This prospective cohort enrolled 110 consecutive kidney donors undergoing nephrectomy. Subjects underwent pulmonary function (using spirometry) and respiratory muscular strength (using manovacuometry) assessments on the day prior to surgery and 1, 2, 3 and 5 days postoperatively. Quality of life (measured by the SF-36) was evaluated preoperatively and 30 days postoperatively. PPCs were assessed daily by a blinded assessor.RESULTS: Donors exhibited a decrease of 27% in forced vital capacity, 58% in maximum inspiratory capacity and 51% in maximum expiratory pressure on the 1stpostoperative day (p<0.001) but this improved over days 2, 3 and 5 but had not returned to preoperative levels. Patient quality of life was still impaired at 30 days with regards to functional capacity, physical role, pain, vitality and social functioning (p<0.05) but these parameters improved slowly. None of the patients developed PPCs.CONCLUSION: Kidney donors submitted to nephrectomy exhibited a reduction in pulmonary function, respiratory muscular strength and quality of life, most of which were improving toward pre-surgical levels.
Subject(s)
Humans , Postoperative Complications/physiopathology , Respiratory Muscles/physiopathology , Lung/physiopathology , Nephrectomy , Quality of Life , Respiration , Longitudinal StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the evidence of the use of incentive spirometry (IS) for the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications and for the recovery of pulmonary function in patients undergoing abdominal, cardiac and thoracic surgeries. METHODS: Searches were performed in the following databases: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro and Scopus to select randomized controlled trials which the IS was used in pre- and/or post-operative in order to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications and/or recover lung function after abdominal, cardiac and thoracic surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed all studies. In addition, the studies quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included (14 abdominal, 13 cardiac and 3 thoracic surgery; n=3,370 patients). In the analysis of the methodological quality, studies achieved a PEDro average score of 5.6, 4.7 and 4.8 points in abdominal, cardiac and thoracic surgeries, respectively. Five studies (3 abdominal, 1 cardiac and 1 thoracic surgery) compared the effect of the IS with control group (no intervention) and no difference was detected in the evaluated outcomes. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence to support the use of incentive spirometry in the management of surgical patients. Despite this, the use of incentive spirometry remains widely used without standardization in clinical practice.
OBJETIVO: Realizar um levantamento da literatura para avaliar as evidências do uso do incentivador respiratório (IR) na prevenção de complicações pulmonares pós-operatórias (CPPs) e recuperação da função pulmonar em pacientes submetidos a cirurgias abdominal, cardíaca e torácica. MÉTODOS: Esta revisão sistemática utilizou as bases de dados Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro e Scopus para selecionar ensaios clínicos randomizados, nos quais o IR foi utilizado nos período pré e/ou pós-operatório, visando prevenir CPP e/ou recuperar função pulmonar após cirurgias abdominal, cardíaca ou torácica. Dois revisores analisaram independentemente os estudos. Além disso, a qualidade dos estudos foi avaliada segundo a escala PEDro. RESULTADOS: Trinta estudos foram incluídos (14 de cirurgia abdominal, 13 de cardíaca e três de torácica; n=3370 pacientes). Na análise de qualidade, os estudos obtiveram média de 5,6, 4,7 e 4,8 pontos nas cirurgias abdominais, cardíacas e torácicas, respectivamente. Cinco estudos (três de cirurgia abdominal, um de cardíaca e um de torácica) compararam o efeito do IR com grupo controle (sem intervenção) e não se verificou diferença nos desfechos estudados. CONCLUSÃO: Não se encontraram evidências que subsidiem o uso do IR no manejo de pacientes cirúrgicos. Apesar disso, o uso do IR continua não-padronizado e amplamente difundido na prática clínica.