AIRWAY POSITIVE PRESSURE VS. EXERCISES WITH INSPIRATORY LOADING FOCUSED ON PULMONARY AND RESPIRATORY MUSCULAR FUNCTIONS IN THE POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD OF BARIATRIC SURGERY

• Autor(a) principal: ROCHA,Maura Rigoldi Simões da
• Data de Publicação: 2018
• Outros Autores: SOUZA,Stefane, COSTA,Carolina Moraes da, MERINO,Daniela Faleiros Bertelli, MONTEBELO,Maria Imaculada de Lima, RASERA-JÚNIOR,Irineu, PAZZIANOTTO-FORTI,Eli Maria
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-67202018000200300
• topic: Atelectasis; Respiratory exercises; Physiotherapy; Gastroplasty; Obesity

ABSTRACT Background: Bariatric surgery can trigger postoperative pulmonary complications due to factors inherent to the procedure, mainly due to diaphragmatic dysfunction. Aim: To evaluate and compare the effects of two levels of positive pressure and exercises with inspiratory load on lung function, inspiratory muscle strength and respiratory muscle resistance, and the prevalence of atelectasis after gastroplasty. Methods: Clinical, randomized and blind trial, with subjects submitted to bariatric surgery, allocated to two groups: positive pressure group, who received positive pressure at two levels during one hour and conventional respiratory physiotherapy and inspiratory load group, who performed exercises with load linear inspiratory pressure, six sets of 15 repetitions, in addition to conventional respiratory physiotherapy, both of which were applied twice in the immediate postoperative period and three times a day on the first postoperative day. Spirometry was performed for pulmonary function analysis, nasal inspiratory pressure for inspiratory muscle strength and incremental test of respiratory muscle resistance for sustained maximal inspiratory pressure, both preoperatively and on hospital discharge on the second postoperative day. Results: There was no significant difference (p> 0.05) in the expiratory reserve volume and in the tidal volume in the pre and postoperative periods when compared intra and intergroup. There was no significant difference (p>0.05) in the nasal inspiratory pressure and the maximal inspiratory pressure maintained in the inspiratory load group in the intragroup evaluation, but with a significant difference (p<0.05) compared to the positive pressure group. The prevalence of atelectasis was 5% in both groups with no significant difference (p>0.05) between them. Conclusion: Both groups, associated with conventional respiratory physiotherapy, preserved expiratory reserve volume and tidal volume and had a low atelectasis rate. The inspiratory loading group still maintained inspiratory muscle strength and resistance of respiratory muscles.