RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar o impacto da lipoabdominoplastia na mobilidade diafragmática (MD) e na função pulmonar de mulheres saudáveis. Métodos: Estudo prospectivo de coorte com ultrassonografia de alta resolução e espirometria forçada para a avaliação da MD e da função pulmonar, respectivamente, antes da lipoabdominoplastia, no 10º dia do pós-operatório e no 30º dia do pós-operatório. A MD foi medida durante a respiração em volume corrente e durante uma manobra de CV. Resultados: A amostra foi composta por 20 mulheres, com média de idade de 39,85 ± 7,52 anos e média de índice de massa corporal de 26,21 ± 2,0 kg/m2. Ao compararmos os períodos pré e pós-operatório, observamos que a MD e a função pulmonar foram significativamente menores após a lipoabdominoplastia; a média de MD no 10º dia do pós-operatório foi 17% menor durante a respiração em volume corrente e 15% menor durante a manobra de CV do que a média pré-operatória (p = 0,009 e p < 0,001, respectivamente). Além disso, o VEF1, a CVF e o PFE foram significativamente menores no 10º dia do pós-operatório que no pré-operatório (p = 0,046, p = 0,002 e p < 0,001, respectivamente), retornando aos valores pré-operatórios até o 30º dia do pós-operatório. Conclusões: A lipoabdominoplastia parece ter repercussões negativas em curto prazo na MD e função pulmonar de mulheres saudáveis. No entanto, tanto a função pulmonar como a MD aparentemente retornam ao estado pré-operatório até o 30º dia do pós-operatório. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02762526 [http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/])

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the impact of lipoabdominoplasty on diaphragmatic mobility (DM) and lung function in healthy women. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study using high-resolution ultrasound and forced spirometry to assess DM and lung function, respectively, prior to lipoabdominoplasty, as well as on postoperative day (POD) 10 and POD 30. DM was measured under two conditions: during tidal volume breathing and during a VC maneuver. Results: The sample consisted of 20 women, with a mean age of 39.85 ± 7.52 years and a mean body mass index of 26.21 ± 2.0 kg/m2. Comparing the preoperative and postoperative periods, we found that DM and lung function values were significantly lower after lipoabdominoplasty, the mean DM on POD 10 being 17% and 15% lower during tidal volume breathing and during the VC maneuver, respectively, in comparison with the preoperative mean (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001, respectively). In addition, FEV1, FVC, and PEF were significantly lower on POD 10 than in the preoperative period (p = 0.046, p = 0.002, and p < 0.001, respectively), returning to preoperative values by POD 30. Conclusions: Lipoabdominoplasty appears to have negative short-term repercussions for DM and lung function in healthy women. However, lung function and DM are both apparently restored to preoperative conditions by POD 30. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02762526 [http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/])

Abstract Aim: To investigate the neuromuscular fatigue and recovery after an intermittent isometric handgrip exercise (IIHE) executed until failure with different blood flow restriction (BFR) conditions (free flow, partial and total vascular restriction). Methods: Thirteen healthy men carried out an IIHE at 45% of maximum voluntary isometric force (MVIF) until failure with total restriction (TR), partial restriction (PR) or free flow (FF). The rate of force development (RFD) was extracted from the MIVF over the time intervals of 0-30, 0-50, 0-100, and 0-200ms and normalized by MVIF [relative RFD (RFDr)]. Results: The RFDr decreased significantly (p<0.01) after the IIHE in all BFR conditions and time intervals studied, remaining lower for five minutes. The medians of the RFDr in FF condition were significantly lower (p=0.01) at 30ms (1.56 %MVIF·s-1) and 50ms (1.70 %MVIF·s-1) when compared to TR at 30ms (2.34 %MVIF·s-1) and 50ms (2.63 %MVIF·s-1) in minute 1 post failure. Conclusions: These results show that, regardless of the blood flow restriction level, there is no RFD recovery five minutes after an exhaustive IIHE. When the task was executed with FF, the reduction of the RFD was greater when compared with the TR condition.

It is important and necessary to know the morphometric characteristics of the proximal femur in order to reduce the risk of complications associated with surgical procedures performed in the area due to vascular, metabolic or trauma causes, and to achieve an alignment of prosthesis to be implanted. The morphometric analysis has proved possible to be used, and can be a valid help to obtain certain parameters that may contribute to scientific research in several areas. For this, a good understanding of evaluation techniques and principles that can be applied to obtain reliable and valid results is needed. To measure the proximal femoral epiphysis by manual morphometry, with the aid of the caliper, and digital morphometry, with the aid of software and compare them. Twenty nine femurs were used to measure the following parameters: diameter of the femoral head in the cranio caudal axis (DFHCC) and sagittal axis (DFHS), diameter of the femoral neck cranio caudal axis (DFNCC) and sagittal axis (DFNS), length of the femoral neck (LFN) and length of the intertrochanteric line (LIL). After the measurements, the mean values were compared between the two morphometric techniques. The manual morphometry obtained the following average values: DFHCC 4.42±0.44, DFHS 4.38±0.47; DFNCC 3.10±0.35; DFNS 2.50±0.37; LFN 2.55±0.42; LIL 4.79±0.62. While the values obtained by digital morphometry were: DFHCC 3.09±0.41, DFHS 3.35±0.40; DFNCC 1.79±0.26; DFNS 2.26±0.23; LFN 1.42±0.33; LIL 3.33±0.54. All parameters measured from the manual technique showed values significantly higher (p<0.05) than values obtained by digital morphometry. This study showed that there is no morphometry gold standard. Different morphometric methods can effectively reproduce, the values of morphometric anatomical structures, depending on the purpose of the study, the anatomical structures and experience of the researcher.

Es importante y necesario conocer las características morfométricas del fémur proximal con el fin de reducir el riesgo de complicaciones asociadas con los procedimientos quirúrgicos realizados en la zona debido a causas vasculares, metabólicas o traumáticas y para lograr una alineación de prótesis para ser implantada. El análisis morfométrico ha demostrado que es posible utilizar, y puede ser una ayuda válida para obtener ciertos parámetros que pueden contribuir a la investigación científica en diversas áreas. Para ello, se necesita un buen conocimiento de las técnicas de evaluación y los principios que se pueden aplicar para obtener resultos fiables y válidos. El objetivo fue medir la epífisis femoral proximal mediante morfometría manual mediante la ayuda de pinza y compararla con la morfometría digital mediante software . Veintinueve fémures fueron utilizados para medir los siguientes parámetros: diámetro de la cabeza femoral en el eje cráneo-caudal (DFHCC) y eje sagital (DFH-S), diámetro del eje cráneo-caudal del cuello femoral (DFNCC) y eje sagital (DFNS), longitud del cuello femoral (LFN) y la longitud de la línea intertrocantérica (LIL). Después de las mediciones, los valores medios se compararon entre las dos técnicas morfométricas. La morfometría manual obtuvo los siguientes valores medios: DFHCC 4,42±0,44, DFHS 4,38±0,47; DFNCC 3.10±0.35; DFNS 2,50±0,37; LFN2,55±0,42; LIL 4,79±0,62. Mientras que los valores obtenidos por la morfometría digitales fueron: DFHCC 3,09±0,41, DFHS 3,35±0,40; DFNCC 1,79±0,26; DFNS 2,26±0,23; LFN 1,42±0,33; LIL 3,33±0,54. Todos los parámetros medidos de la técnica manual mostraron valores significativamente mayores (p<0,05) que los valores obtenidos por morfometría digital. Este estudio mostró que no existe un estándar en morfometría. Diferentes métodos morfométricos pueden reproducir de manera efectiva los valores de las estructuras anatómicas morfométricas, dependiendo del propósito del estudio, de las estructuras anatómicas y la experiencia del investigador.