Chest ACCP Education Calendar
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lanier, R.
Right arrow Articles by Olsen, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lanier, R.
Right arrow Articles by Olsen, G.

Chest, Vol 99, 826-830, Copyright © 1991 by American College of Chest Physicians


ARTICLES

Can concomitant restriction be detected in adult men with airflow obstruction?

RC Lanier and GN Olsen
Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia 29208.

A reduction in lung volume is used to diagnose physiologic restriction in the pulmonary function tests of patients with lung disease. Airflow obstruction is commonly associated with hyperinflation of static lung volume. Because restriction and obstruction exert opposite effects on lung volumes, we questioned whether the lack of hyperinflation of static lung volumes could indicate the presence of concomitant restriction in patients with airflow obstructive ventilatory defects. To assess this, we evaluated by pulmonary function tests and chest roentgenograms of 58 patients with airflow obstruction (group 1), 18 of whom then sustained various types of resection for lung cancer (group 2) as a type of superimposed restriction. We selected 80 percent of predicted as the lower limit of "normal" frequently used by clinical pulmonary function laboratories. Despite a statistically significant decrease in total lung capacity (p less than 0.05) for the postpneumonectomy patients, when the static lung volume measurements of the patients with resection were evaluated, no one lung volume showed a consistent reduction sufficient to detect the superimposed restriction in all these patients. Using 80 percent of predicted as "normal," 61 percent of our patients with airflow obstruction and superimposed restriction would have been missed. We conclude that it is clinically difficult, based on only static lung volume measurements alone, to detect restriction superimposed on the hyperinflation of airflow obstruction unless these lung volumes are reduced to below accepted "normal" limits.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American College of Chest Physicians.