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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |