Key result
The addition of a Tri-Ball breathing exerciser to standardized physical therapy did not significantly improve postoperative vital capacity (76.38% vs 76.84%) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Why the study?
The effect of using a Tri-Ball breathing exerciser on pulmonary function test results in patients undergoing cardiac surgery was unknown.
Does the Tri-Ball breathing exerciser improve pulmonary function test results in patients undergoing cardiac surgery?
RCT (n=66)
Does the Tri-Ball breathing exerciser improve pulmonary function test results in patients undergoing cardiac surgery?
The addition of a Tri-Ball breathing exerciser to standard physical therapy does not provide additional benefits for pulmonary function recovery in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Tri-Ball breathing exerciser need not be added to standard physical therapy after cardiac surgery; confirms limited efficacy of such devices.
Objective: To investigate the effect of using Tri-Ball breathing exerciser on the results of the pulmonary function test in the patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Design: prospective randomized controlled trial. Setting: hospitalized care. Participants: 66 patients of both sexes were randomly divided into control group (CG) and training group (TG). Interventions: Both groups received standardized physical therapy (early mobilization; therapeutic exercises; chest wall vibrations; percussions; coughing; calm deep breathing without simultaneous movements of the limbs or other parts of the body to rest between therapeutic exercises and reduce respiratory and heart rates). TG patients also used Tri-Ball breathing exerciser to train inspiratory muscles. Main Outcome Measures: the results of the pulmonary function test before the surgery and on the 7 postoperative day. Results: pulmonary function had no statistical difference in CG and TG patients both before the surgery and on the 7 postoperative day. Vital capacity reduced from 103.81 ± 13.20% to 76.84 ± 14.65% in CG and from 104.18 ± 13.20% to 76.38 ± 16.18% in TG. The reduction of peak expiratory flow was less pronounced in both groups: from 96.91 ± 14.05% to 79.19 ± 18.08% in CG and from 98.77 ± 19.38% to 82.03 ± 20.75% in TG. Inspiratory indicators (forced inspiratory vital capacity, forced inspiratory volume in one second, peak inspiratory flow) also did not confirm any additional benefit of using Tri-Ball breathing exercises, despite the fact that it is aimed to train deep, strong and quick inhalation. Tiffeneau index had no statistical changes in CG (p = .257), though it showed statistical improvement in TG (p = .031). Conclusions: The study did not confirm any benefits of using Tri-Ball breathing exercises in the physical therapy program.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vitomskyi et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Cardiac surgery (n=66). Tri-Ball breathing exerciser vs. Standardized physical therapy alone was evaluated on Pulmonary function test results (vital capacity) on the 7th postoperative day. The addition of a Tri-Ball breathing exerciser to standardized physical therapy did not significantly improve postoperative vital capacity (76.38% vs 76.84%) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: