BACKGROUND: While respiratory and core-postural stabilisation has recently gained a widespread acceptance to improve pulmonary function and dyspena, the therapeutic effects of and rationale underlying the use of respiratory and core-postural stabilisation in the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of abdominal breathing and respiratory and core-postural stabilisation on diaphragmatic movement and pulmonary function. METHODS: Fourteen patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomly assigned to either the respiratory and core-postural stabilisation or abdominal breathing group. All patients underwent fluoroscopy-guided chest X-ray imaging and pulmonary function tests before and after the interventions; the modified Medical Research Council questionnaire was also administered before and after the interventions. Six sessions of either intervention were consistently provided. The obtained data were assessed using independent t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank test with a significance threshold of P< 0.05. RESULTS: Respiratory and core-postural stabilisation was more effective in increasing diaphragmatic movements than abdominal breathing (P< 0.05). Pulmonary function tests revealed more significant differences in the forced vital capacity (FVC(%)predicted) only after respiratory and core-postural stabilisation (P= 0.004). The Medical Research Council questionnaire score was significantly different within the Respiratory and core-postural stabilisation group (P= 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Our novel results suggest that the effects of respiratory and core-postural stabilisation breathing on diaphragmatic movement and pulmonary function were superior to those of abdominal breathing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

No abstract

No abstract