ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Flutter is a device used in removing excess lung secretions. The conventional flutter lacks a biofeedback component to facilitate optimal use by the patients. OBJECTIVE: The current research aims to compare the effects of biofeedback flutter devices with the conventional flutter in managing the symptoms of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-eight participants were randomly allocated into four groups: Group A (conventional), Group B (visual biofeedback), Group C (auditory biofeedback) and Group D (visual and auditory biofeedback). All groups were treated five days for 20 minutes. Outcome measures included wet sputum weight [during intervention (T1) and 1 hour after intervention (T2)], oxygen saturation and dyspnea score (before and after intervention) on all days. RESULTS: The wet sputum expectorated (T2) by Group B was significantly higher than Group A (P< 0.001), Group C (P< 0.001) and Group D (P< 0.05). The dyspnea score for Group B (P< 0.05), Group C (P< 0.05) and Group D (P< 0.05) was significantly lower than Group A. The post-intervention oxygen saturation level was higher in Group D followed by Groups B, C and A. CONCLUSION: The use of biofeedback flutter is effective in the removal of secretion, reducing dyspnea and improving oxygen saturation when compared to conventional flutter.
Subject(s)
Biofeedback, Psychology , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive , Dyspnea , Humans , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/therapy , Sputum , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Inflammation of synovial membrane and degeneration of articular cartilage in osteoarthritis (OA) lead to major changes in joint space width (JSW) and biochemical components such as collagen-II telopeptide (CTX-II) and matrix metallo protineases (MMP-3, 8, and 13). Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is thought to have an analgesic effect as well as biomodulatory effect on microcirculation and cartilage regeneration in animal studies. The objective of this study was to examine the analgesic and biochemical effect of LLLT in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Subjects (n = 34) who fulfilled the selection criteria were randomly divided into active group (n = 17) and placebo group. Subjects in active group were irradiated laser with the frequency of 3 days per week for 4 weeks with the specific parameters on 8 different points on the joint at 1.5 J per point for 60 s for 8 points for a total dose of 12 J in a skin contact method. The placebo group was treated with the same probe with minimum emission of energy. Visual analog scale for pain intensity, joint space width, collagen-II telopeptide, and matrix metallo protinease-3, 8, and 13 was measured before treatment and at 4 and 8 weeks following treatment. Data are analyzed with mean values and standard deviation with p < 0.05. Baseline values of all outcome measures show insignificant difference (p > 0.05) in both groups which shows homogeneity. After 4- and 8-week treatment, active laser group shows more significant difference (p < 0.001) in all the parameters than the placebo laser group (p > 0.05). Our results show that low-level laser therapy was more efficient in reducing pain and improving cartilage thickness through biochemical changes.
