Which Body Position Is the Best for Chest Wall Motion in Healthy Adults? A Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Respiratory care 2018-11, Vol.63 (11), p.1439-1451
• Main Authors: Sonpeayung, Rattanaporn, Tantisuwat, Anong, Klinsophon, Thaniya, Thaveeratitham, Premtip
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0020-1324; 1943-3654
• DOI: 10.4187/respcare.06344

Chest wall motion is a vital component of the respiratory system. Body position changes disturb joint orientation around the chest wall and results in performance modifications of respiratory muscles and movement surrounding the rib cage and the abdomen. Body position is a priority treatment for preserving and promoting chest wall motion. The objective of the study was to conduct a meta-analysis to provide insight into which body position most effectively improves chest wall motion. Medical literature databases were systemically searched up to January 31, 2018. Methodological quality was evaluated by using a checklist for measuring quality. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of body positions on chest wall motion. The quality of evidence was judged by using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Six studies (5 high- and 1 low-quality) were identified. Our results showed that the sitting position provided greater improvement in chest-wall diameter changes and volume related to rib-cage function versus other body positions (very low to moderate evidence). The supine position demonstrated greater enhancement of chest-wall-diameter changes and volume in the part of the abdomen than the other body positions with very low to moderate evidence. The results of this review indicated that the sitting position improved the rib-cage compartment of the chest wall, whereas the supine position resulted in the superior enhancement in the part of the abdomen relative to other body positions. These changes in the body position could have some effect on the movements of the rib cage and abdomen and the variations in lung volumes, which need to be interpreted with caution when considering implementation in the clinical setting.