Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Comparison of two methods of postoperative respiratory care |
Dohi S, Gold MI |
Chest 1978 May;73(5):592-595 |
clinical trial |
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
After abdominal surgery, 64 patients were managed with one of the following two techniques of respiratory care: (1) deep breathing by way of a new device, an incentive spirometric three-ball, flow-measuring device (Triflo); and (2) standard episodic intermittent positive-pressure breathing (IPPB) every four hours. Both series of patients received therapy with a bronchodilator drug by nebulization. All patients had preoperative spirometric measurements followed by five consecutive days of therapy and spirometry. Chest x-ray films were obtained for all patients. There were no significant differences between the two methods of respiratory care, but 57 percent (17/30) in the group receiving therapy with IPPB developed pneumonia, atelectasis, or bronchitis, while only 29 percent (10/34) did so in the group using the incentive spirometric device (p < 0.05). Spirometric differences were minimal, although the trend favored the incentive spirometric device. Principal conclusions were as follows: (1) deep breathing under the conditions of this investigation was equal to episodic therapy with IPPB; and (2) from an economic standpoint, IPPB, as it is currently practiced, may be disadvantageous when compared with the incentive spirometric device.
|