Lung function in post-poliomyelitis syndrome: A cross-sectional study

4Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To compare lung function between patients with post-poliomyelitis syndrome and those with sequelae of paralytic poliomyelitis (without any signs or symptoms of post-poliomyelitis syndrome), as well as between patients with post-poliomyelitis syndrome and healthy controls. Methods: Twenty-nine male participants were assigned to one of three groups: control; poliomyelitis (comprising patients who had had paralytic poliomyelitis but had not developed post-poliomyelitis syndrome); and post-poliomyelitis syndrome. Volunteers underwent lung function measurements (spirometry and respiratory muscle strength assessment). Results: The results of the spirometric assessment revealed no significant differences among the groups except for an approximately 27% lower mean maximal voluntary ventilation in the post-poliomyelitis syndrome group when compared with the control group (p = 0.0127). Nevertheless, the maximal voluntary ventilation values for the post-poliomyelitis group were compared with those for the Brazilian population and were found to be normal. No significant differences were observed in respiratory muscle strength among the groups. Conclusions: With the exception of lower maximal voluntary ventilation, there was no significant lung function impairment in outpatients diagnosed with post-poliomyelitis syndrome when compared with healthy subjects and with patients with sequelae of poliomyelitis without post-poliomyelitis syndrome. This is an important clinical finding because it shows that patients with post-poliomyelitis syndrome can have preserved lung function.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

De Lira, C. A. B., Minozzo, F. C., Sousa, B. S., Vancini, R. L., Andrade, M. D. S., Quadros, A. A. J., … Da Silva, A. C. (2013). Lung function in post-poliomyelitis syndrome: A cross-sectional study. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 39(4), 455–460. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1806-37132013000400009

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free