ERJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Permissions
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Orozco-Levi, M
Right arrow Articles by Broquetas, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Orozco-Levi, M
Right arrow Articles by Broquetas, J.
Eur Respir J 1995; 8: 441-445
Copyright © ERS Journals Ltd 1995


Original Articles

Activity of latissimus dorsi muscle during inspiratory threshold loads

M Orozco-Levi, J Gea, J Monells, X Aran, MC Aguar, and JM Broquetas

The ability of the latissimus dorsi muscle (LD) to participate as an accessory inspiratory muscle has been the subject of controversy. Electromyographic (EGM) activity of LD was evaluated in 11 healthy subjects (aged 30 +/- 2 yrs; forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 106 +/- 5% predicted; maximal inspiratory pressure (Pmax), 120 +/- 6 cmH2O) under different breathing conditions. The ipsilateral biceps brachii was chosen as the control muscle. The EMG was recorded from surface electrodes, but needle electrodes were also used for LD evaluation in a subset of three subjects. The EMG signal from both muscles was recorded simultaneously, rectified and integrated, with subtraction of the electrocardiographic signal. Situations evaluated were: 1) maximal voluntary contraction (MVC); 2) apnoea; and 3) breathing under progressive inspiratory threshold loads (20-100% Pmax, at 20% intervals). A close relationship was evident between LD recordings from surface and needle electrodes (r = 0.975). Activity of LD at baseline was 1.8 +/- 0.4% MVC, and showed a phasic increase during inspiration under loads. This change had a linear tendency and was significant for loads corresponding to 40, 60, 80 and 100% of Pmax when compared to the control muscle. At this latter level, LD activity was equivalent to 32 +/- 5% MVC (range 11-61%), whereas mean activity of the control muscle was less than 7.5% MVC.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur Respir JHome page
M. Orozco-Levi
Structure and function of the respiratory muscles in patients with COPD: impairment or adaptation?
Eur. Respir. J., November 2, 2003; 22(46_suppl): 41s - 51s.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the European Respiratory Society.