Journal of Applied Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Appl Physiol 49: 946-952, 1980;
8750-7587/80 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bradley, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Anthonisen, N. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bradley, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Anthonisen, N. R.

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 49, Issue 6 946-952, Copyright © 1980 by American Physiological Society

ARTICLES

Rib cage and abdominal restrictions have different effects on lung mechanics

C. A. Bradley and N. R. Anthonisen

The effects of a variety of restrictive procedures on lung mechanics were studied in eight healthy subjects. Rib cage restriction decreased total lung capacity (TLC) by 43% and significantly increased elastic recoil and maximum expiratory flow (MEF). Subsequent immersion of four subjects with rib cage restriction resulted in no further change in either parameter; shifts of blood volume did not reverse recoil changes during rib cage restriction. Abdominal restriction decreased TLC by 40% and increased MEF and elastic recoil, but recoil was increased significantly less than was the case with rib cage restriction. Further, at a given recoil pressure, MEF was less during rib cage restriction than during either abdominal restriction or no restriction. Measurements of the unevenness of inspired gas distribution by the single-breath nitrogen technique showed increased unevenness during rib cage restriction, which was significantly greater than that during abdominal restriction. We conclude that lung volume restriction induces changes in lung function, but the nature of these changes depends on how the restriction is applied and therefore cannot be ascribed to low lung volume breathing per se.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
S. O'Connor, P. McLoughlin, C. G. Gallagher, and H. R. Harty
Ventilatory response to incremental and constant-workload exercise in the presence of a thoracic restriction
J Appl Physiol, December 1, 2000; 89(6): 2179 - 2186.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
J. R. Rodarte, G. Noredin, C. Miller, V. Brusasco, and R. Pellegrino
Lung elastic recoil during breathing at increased lung volume
J Appl Physiol, October 1, 1999; 87(4): 1491 - 1495.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
M. ESTENNE, A. VAN MUYLEM, M. GORINI, W. KINNEAR, A. HEILPORN, and A. DE TROYER
Effects of Abdominal Strapping on Forced Expiration in Tetraplegic Patients
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., January 1, 1997; 157(1): 95 - 98.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online