6533b85bfe1ef96bd12bb4cc

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Comparison of Lateral Abdominal Musculature Activation during Expiration with an Expiratory Flow Control Device Versus the Abdominal Drawing-in Maneuver in Healthy Women: A Cross-Sectional Observational Pilot Study

Emmanuel Navarro-floresCésar Calvo-loboDaniel López-lópezDavid Rodríguez-sanzPaula Maldonado-telloVanesa Abuín-porrasCarlos Romero-moralesMónica De La Cueva-reguera

subject

Adultmedicine.medical_specialtyMedicine (General)WaistMujerMedicinaDonesPeak Expiratory Flow RatePilot ProjectsFisiología humanaArticleabdominal musclesR5-920Abdominal musclesInternal medicineAbdominal drawing-in maneuverAbdomenmedicineHumansExpirationSistema musculoesqueléticoCiencias médicasUltrasonographymuscle activitybusiness.industryultrasonography; abdominal muscles; abdominal drawing-in maneuver; muscle activityGeneral MedicineultrasonographyMujeresAbdominal musculatureHealthy VolunteersCross-Sectional StudiesDuring expirationAbdominal musclesUltrasound imagingCardiologyabdominal drawing-in maneuverFemaleObservational studyUltrasonographybusinessMuscle activity

description

Background and Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to quantify and compare lateral abdominal musculature thickness, including the transverse abdominis (TrA), internal oblique (IO), and external oblique (EO) muscles, via rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) during the use of the expiratory flow control device (EFCD) versus the classic abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM). Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational pilot study. Twenty-one women were recruited and assessed the thickness of each muscle (TrA, IO, and EO) by ultrasound imaging at rest, during the ADIM, and during expiration with the EFCD. Waist circumference was also measured under the same circumstances. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed between ADIM, EFCD, and at rest condition for the thickness of the TrA (p = 0.001) and IO (p = 0.039). Moreover, statistically significant differences for TrAb at rest compared with the ADIM (p = 0.001, Cohen&rsquo

yearjournalcountryeditionlanguage
2020-02-19
10.3390/medicina56020084https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/64202/1/medicina-56-00084.pdf