Affiliations: [a] Saveetha College of Physiotherapy, Saveetha University, Chennai, India | [b] Department of Physical Therapy and Health Rehabilitation, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia | [c] Department of Medical Equipment Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia | [d] Saveetha Medical College, Saveetha University, Chennai, India | [e] Department of Physical Therapy and Health Rehabilitation, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam Bin Abdul Aziz University, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Anandh Vaiyapuri, Department of Physical Therapy and Health Rehabilitation, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia. Tel.: +966 506936518; E-mail: [email protected].
Note: [1] These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Flutter is a device used in removing excess lung secretions. The conventional flutter lacks a biofeedback component to facilitate optimal use by the patients. OBJECTIVE: The current research aims to compare the effects of biofeedback flutter devices with the conventional flutter in managing the symptoms of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-eight participants were randomly allocated into four groups: Group A (conventional), Group B (visual biofeedback), Group C (auditory biofeedback) and Group D (visual and auditory biofeedback). All groups were treated five days for 20 minutes. Outcome measures included wet sputum weight [during intervention (T1) and 1 hour after intervention (T2)], oxygen saturation and dyspnea score (before and after intervention) on all days. RESULTS: The wet sputum expectorated (T2) by Group B was significantly higher than Group A (P< 0.001), Group C (P< 0.001) and Group D (P< 0.05). The dyspnea score for Group B (P< 0.05), Group C (P< 0.05) and Group D (P< 0.05) was significantly lower than Group A. The post-intervention oxygen saturation level was higher in Group D followed by Groups B, C and A. CONCLUSION: The use of biofeedback flutter is effective in the removal of secretion, reducing dyspnea and improving oxygen saturation when compared to conventional flutter.
