【論文摘要】Patients With Chronic Neck Pain Have Impairments in Pulmonary Functions, Respiratory Muscle Strength, and Diaphragmatic Functions

【論文摘要】慢性頸痛患者有較差之肺功能、呼吸肌力量、及橫膈膜活動度與厚度

許意璇(Everlynn Yi-Xuan Hii) ； 蔡一如(Yi-Ju Tsai)

《物理治療》 46卷4期 (2021/12) Pp. 282-283

https://doi.org/10.6215/FJPT.202112.O03

摘要

Background and Purpose: Diaphragm is the principal muscle for respiration and contributes to spinal stability. Previous studies have found that patients with low back pain had impaired pulmonary functions and reduced diaphragmatic functions. Neck pain is a raising problem nowadays and needs attention. Many superficial neck muscles are accessory inspiratory muscles. Evidence of fascia and neural connection between cervical spine and diaphragm have been identified. Associations among pulmonary functions, diaphragmatic functions, and neck pain are thus hypothesized. However, to date, only few studies have investigated the pulmonary functions and respiratory strength in patients with neck pain, and their results were controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the pulmonary functions, respiratory muscle strength, and diaphragmatic functions in patients with chronic neck pain (CNP) and healthy adults. Methods: A total of 58 participants including 29 patients with CNP (CNP group) and 29 healthy adults (control group) were recruited. Forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV_1) were measured for pulmonary functions. Respiratory muscle strength was measured as maximal inspiratory volume (MIP) and maximal expiratory volume (MEP). Diaphragmatic mobility and thickness were assessed using the ultrasonography. Independent t-tests were conducted using the SPSS version 17.0 with a significant level of 0.05. Results: Compared to the control group, the FVC (3.17 ± 0.88 vs. 3.71 ± 0.87 L, p = 0.023), FEV_1 (2.56 ± 0.68 vs. 3.07 ± 0.74 L, p = 0.008), MIP (66.78 ± 29.73 vs. 96.20 ± 28.39 cmH_2O, p ＜ 0.001), and MEP (68.41 ± 36.78 vs. 92.36 ± 24.92 cmH_2O, p = 0.005) were significantly reduced in the CNP group. Furthermore, the diaphragmatic mobility (69.45 ± 13.92 vs. 76.89 ± 12.82 mm, p = 0.039) and thickness (2.03 ± 0.77 vs. 2.71 ± 1.24 mm, p = 0.015) were significantly smaller for the CNP group than the control group. Conclusion: Patients with CNP demonstrated impairments in pulmonary functions, respiratory muscle strength, and diaphragmatic functions. Clinical Relevance: Current results provide a possible rationale for respiratory training or diaphragmatic intervention in patients with CNP.