This article provides the clinical rationale necessary to determine the most appropriate ACT for each patient, thereby improving care. After reviewing each ACT to determine if it utilises both ventilation and expiratory flow, these physiological concepts are assessed against the clinical evidence to provide a mechanism for the effectiveness of each ACT. Newer ACTs are based on two other physiological premises: the ability to ventilate behind obstructed regions of the lung and the capacity to achieve the minimum expiratory airflow bias necessary to mobilise secretions. The physiological underpinning of postural drainage is that by placing a patient in various positions, gravity enhances mobilisation of secretions. Possession of a strong understanding of the physiological basis for ACTs will enable clinicians to decide which ACT best aligns with the individual patient's pathology in diseases with anatomical bronchiectasis and mucus hypersecretion. It is based on a synthesis of the physiological evidence that supports the modulation of ventilation and expiratory airflow as a means of assisting airway clearance. This review describes a framework for providing a personalised approach to selecting the most appropriate airway clearance technique (ACT) for each patient. The use of biofeedback flutter is effective in the removal of secretion, reducing dyspnea and improving oxygen saturation when compared to conventional flutter. The post-intervention oxygen saturation level was higher in Group D followed by Groups B, C and A. 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 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). Outcome measures included wet sputum weight, oxygen saturation and dyspnea score (before and after intervention) on all days. All groups were treated five days for 20 minutes. 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). 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. The conventional flutter lacks a biofeedback component to facilitate optimal use by the patients. This device is small, portable, and easy to use and has no side effects.įlutter is a device used in removing excess lung secretions. If the value goes below the certain threshold, limit the beep sound is heard and a light indication is provided so that we can find whether the patient should blow out even more faster. Some patients cannot blow very forcefully, so our project is designed in such a way that the resistance of the blow is measured using a strain gauge. The combination of increased pressure and vibrations helps the mucous move from the lungs into the airways where it can be coughed out. This bouncing causes increased pressure inside the chest and sends vibrations down through the airways. When one breathes out through the Flutter, it causes the ball inside to bounce. Infection is also possible when mucous stays trapped in the airways. If this mucous stays in the airways, it could block them, making it harder to breathe. Sometimes mucous in the lungs can become thick and hard to clear from the airways. This device is designed to mobilize the excessive secretion of in the direction of airways and helps to loosen the mucus from the lungs and removed. The Flutter is a medical handheld device, which is designed for patients suffering from various lung diseases.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |