Biofeedback Sensor vs. Physiotherapist Feedback During Core Stabilization Training in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain.

Core stabilization training utilizes principles of motor learning to retrain control of the trunk muscles and lead to improvements in chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP). To compare the effects of biofeedback sensor and conventional physiotherapist (PT) feedback during core stabilization and activity training in patients with CNLBP. Thirty-eight patients with CNLBP were randomly assigned to Biofeedback (n = 19) or PT feedback (n = 19) groups. Patients continued 12 sessions of combined core stabilization and activity training. An auditory and tactile biofeedback was given using a validated tilt sensor integrated with an application in the Biofeedback group. An experienced PT provided verbal and tactile feedback to maintain the neutral position in the PT Feedback group. The outcomes were; disability (Revised Oswestry Disability Index-RODI), muscle activity (m.transversus abdominis and m.multifidus), pain (Visual Analog Scale-VAS), proprioception error of the trunk, patient beliefs (Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-FABQ) and presence of depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Index-BDI), and quality of life (Short Form (SF)-36). The main effect of time were statistically significant on VAS, RODI, m.transversus abdominis and m.multifidus muscle activities, flexion, and extension proprioception error of the trunk, FABQ, BDI, and SF-36 scores in Biofeedback and PT feedback groups (p < 0.05 for all). The time X group interaction was significant on flexion and extension proprioception error of the trunk PT feedback group (consecutively; p = 0.004, p = 0.022). Biofeedback sensor or PT feedback during core stabilization training equally improves pain, disability, muscle activity, depressive symptoms, patient beliefs, and quality of life in patients with CNLBP.

Comment on Vázquez-Gandullo et al. Inspiratory Muscle Training in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) as Part of a Respiratory Rehabilitation Program Implementation of Mechanical Devices: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5564.

In May 2022, the paper "Inspiratory Muscle Training in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) as Part of a Respiratory Rehabilitation Program Implementation of Mechanical Devices: A Systematic Review" was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [...].

A randomized controlled trial on inspiratory muscle training in pulmonary hypertension: Effects on respiratory functions, functional exercise capacity, physical activity, and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Impaired respiratory muscle function may be one of the causes of increased dyspnea, reduced exercise capacity, and physical activity (PA), and poor quality of life in pulmonary hypertension (PH). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of threshold inspiratory muscle training (TIMT) on respiratory functions, functional exercise capacity, PA, and QoL in patients with PH. METHODS: Thirty patients with PH were randomly allocated to a TIMT (n = 15) and sham group (n = 15). Three patients in the sham group could not participate in the program. The TIMT group (n = 15) trained at 30% of the maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), and the sham group (n = 12) performed at lowest pressure without change in threshold pressure. In both groups, patients performed TIMT at home for 15 min, twice per day, with the MIP load determined by the trainer, and were supervised once weekly at the hospital for eight weeks. The primary outcomes were MIP and maximal expiratory pressure (MEP). The secondary outcome measures included spirometric measurements, six-minute walking distance (6MWD), PA (SenseWear armband and International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form-IPAQ-Short Form), and QoL (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure-MLHF). RESULTS: After the training, changes in MIP (p = 0.023) were higher in the intervention group compared with the sham group. Differences in MEP, FEV1 (%), FVC (%), FEV1/FVC (%), 6MWD, %6MWD, IPAQ-SF, MLHFQ, and armband parameters were not significantly different between the groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study demonstrated that TIMT could increase MIP and did not improve other parameters of respiratory functions, functional exercise capacity, PA, and QoL in patients with PH.