Cargando…

Clinical evaluation of an air-capsule technique for the direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure after elective abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND: The gold standard for assessment of intraabdominal pressure (IAP) is via intravesicular pressure measurement (IVP). This accepted technique has some inherent problems, e.g. indirectness. Aim of this clinical study was to assess direct IAP measurement using an air-capsule method (ACM) reg...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Otto, Jens, Kaemmer, Daniel, Biermann, Andreas, Jansen, Marc, Dembinski, Rolf, Schumpelick, Volker, Schachtrupp, Alexander
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2575193/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18925973
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-8-18
_version_ 1782160303421652992
author Otto, Jens
Kaemmer, Daniel
Biermann, Andreas
Jansen, Marc
Dembinski, Rolf
Schumpelick, Volker
Schachtrupp, Alexander
author_facet Otto, Jens
Kaemmer, Daniel
Biermann, Andreas
Jansen, Marc
Dembinski, Rolf
Schumpelick, Volker
Schachtrupp, Alexander
author_sort Otto, Jens
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The gold standard for assessment of intraabdominal pressure (IAP) is via intravesicular pressure measurement (IVP). This accepted technique has some inherent problems, e.g. indirectness. Aim of this clinical study was to assess direct IAP measurement using an air-capsule method (ACM) regarding complications risks and agreement with IVP in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in 30 patients undergoing elective colonic, hepatic, pancreatic and esophageal resection. For ACM a Probe 3 (Spiegelberg(®), Germany) was placed on the greater omentum. It was passed through the abdominal wall paralleling routine drainages. To compare ACM with IVP t-testing was performed and mean difference as well as limits of agreement were calculated. RESULTS: ACM did not lead to complications particularly with regard to organ lesion or surgical site infection. Mean insertion time of ACM was 4.4 days (min-max: 1–5 days). 168 pairwise measurements were made. Mean ACM value was 7.9 ± 2.7 mmHg while mean IVP was 8.4 ± 3.0 mmHg (n.s). Mean difference was 0.4 mmHg ± 2.2 mmHg. Limits of agreement were -4.1 mmHg to 5.1 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Using ACM, direct IAP measurement is feasible and uncomplicated. Associated with relatively low pressure ranges (<17 mmHg), results are comparable to bladder pressure measurement.
format Text
id pubmed-2575193
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-25751932008-10-30 Clinical evaluation of an air-capsule technique for the direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure after elective abdominal surgery Otto, Jens Kaemmer, Daniel Biermann, Andreas Jansen, Marc Dembinski, Rolf Schumpelick, Volker Schachtrupp, Alexander BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: The gold standard for assessment of intraabdominal pressure (IAP) is via intravesicular pressure measurement (IVP). This accepted technique has some inherent problems, e.g. indirectness. Aim of this clinical study was to assess direct IAP measurement using an air-capsule method (ACM) regarding complications risks and agreement with IVP in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in 30 patients undergoing elective colonic, hepatic, pancreatic and esophageal resection. For ACM a Probe 3 (Spiegelberg(®), Germany) was placed on the greater omentum. It was passed through the abdominal wall paralleling routine drainages. To compare ACM with IVP t-testing was performed and mean difference as well as limits of agreement were calculated. RESULTS: ACM did not lead to complications particularly with regard to organ lesion or surgical site infection. Mean insertion time of ACM was 4.4 days (min-max: 1–5 days). 168 pairwise measurements were made. Mean ACM value was 7.9 ± 2.7 mmHg while mean IVP was 8.4 ± 3.0 mmHg (n.s). Mean difference was 0.4 mmHg ± 2.2 mmHg. Limits of agreement were -4.1 mmHg to 5.1 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Using ACM, direct IAP measurement is feasible and uncomplicated. Associated with relatively low pressure ranges (<17 mmHg), results are comparable to bladder pressure measurement. BioMed Central 2008-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC2575193/ /pubmed/18925973 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-8-18 Text en Copyright © 2008 Otto et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Otto, Jens
Kaemmer, Daniel
Biermann, Andreas
Jansen, Marc
Dembinski, Rolf
Schumpelick, Volker
Schachtrupp, Alexander
Clinical evaluation of an air-capsule technique for the direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure after elective abdominal surgery
title Clinical evaluation of an air-capsule technique for the direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure after elective abdominal surgery
title_full Clinical evaluation of an air-capsule technique for the direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure after elective abdominal surgery
title_fullStr Clinical evaluation of an air-capsule technique for the direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure after elective abdominal surgery
title_full_unstemmed Clinical evaluation of an air-capsule technique for the direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure after elective abdominal surgery
title_short Clinical evaluation of an air-capsule technique for the direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure after elective abdominal surgery
title_sort clinical evaluation of an air-capsule technique for the direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure after elective abdominal surgery
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2575193/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18925973
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-8-18
work_keys_str_mv AT ottojens clinicalevaluationofanaircapsuletechniqueforthedirectmeasurementofintraabdominalpressureafterelectiveabdominalsurgery
AT kaemmerdaniel clinicalevaluationofanaircapsuletechniqueforthedirectmeasurementofintraabdominalpressureafterelectiveabdominalsurgery
AT biermannandreas clinicalevaluationofanaircapsuletechniqueforthedirectmeasurementofintraabdominalpressureafterelectiveabdominalsurgery
AT jansenmarc clinicalevaluationofanaircapsuletechniqueforthedirectmeasurementofintraabdominalpressureafterelectiveabdominalsurgery
AT dembinskirolf clinicalevaluationofanaircapsuletechniqueforthedirectmeasurementofintraabdominalpressureafterelectiveabdominalsurgery
AT schumpelickvolker clinicalevaluationofanaircapsuletechniqueforthedirectmeasurementofintraabdominalpressureafterelectiveabdominalsurgery
AT schachtruppalexander clinicalevaluationofanaircapsuletechniqueforthedirectmeasurementofintraabdominalpressureafterelectiveabdominalsurgery