Direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure in various conditions.

A Shafik, A El-Sharkawy, W M Sharaf
{"title":"Direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure in various conditions.","authors":"A Shafik,&nbsp;A El-Sharkawy,&nbsp;W M Sharaf","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To standardise a direct method for measuring intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), to correlate the results with intrarectal pressure, and to compare the results in various conditions.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective open study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Teaching hospital, Egypt.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>34 Subjects in 4 groups: control (n = 11), hernia (n = 8; 6 umbilical and 2 incisional), mass (n = 7; 6 enlarged spleen and 1 carcinoma of sigmoid), and obese (n = 8; a mean of 40% above expected weight).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Measurement of IAP with a Verres needle connected to a pressure transducer with the patient at rest, straining, supine, erect, and before and after anaesthesia. Intrarectal pressure was measured simultaneously.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Reproducibility and correlation between the two measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The hernia group had significantly lower IAP than controls both at rest and on straining (mean (SD) 2.7 (1.5) cm H2O compared with 7.0 (5.09) and 6.1 (2.7) compared with 20.5 (7.9), p < 0.01 in each case). Neither the mass nor the obese group differed from the controls at rest, but the pressure was higher on straining (31.2 (1.4) and 33.5 (2.07) cm H2O, respectively, compared with 21.9 (7.3), p < 0.05 in each case). There was a significant drop in IAP after anaesthesia in all groups, and no significant difference between intrarectal pressure and IAP in any group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The method of measuring IAP is reproducible. Intrarectal pressure is similar to IAP and can therefore be used instead of it.</p>","PeriodicalId":22411,"journal":{"name":"The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To standardise a direct method for measuring intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), to correlate the results with intrarectal pressure, and to compare the results in various conditions.

Design: Prospective open study.

Setting: Teaching hospital, Egypt.

Subjects: 34 Subjects in 4 groups: control (n = 11), hernia (n = 8; 6 umbilical and 2 incisional), mass (n = 7; 6 enlarged spleen and 1 carcinoma of sigmoid), and obese (n = 8; a mean of 40% above expected weight).

Interventions: Measurement of IAP with a Verres needle connected to a pressure transducer with the patient at rest, straining, supine, erect, and before and after anaesthesia. Intrarectal pressure was measured simultaneously.

Main outcome measures: Reproducibility and correlation between the two measurements.

Results: The hernia group had significantly lower IAP than controls both at rest and on straining (mean (SD) 2.7 (1.5) cm H2O compared with 7.0 (5.09) and 6.1 (2.7) compared with 20.5 (7.9), p < 0.01 in each case). Neither the mass nor the obese group differed from the controls at rest, but the pressure was higher on straining (31.2 (1.4) and 33.5 (2.07) cm H2O, respectively, compared with 21.9 (7.3), p < 0.05 in each case). There was a significant drop in IAP after anaesthesia in all groups, and no significant difference between intrarectal pressure and IAP in any group.

Conclusion: The method of measuring IAP is reproducible. Intrarectal pressure is similar to IAP and can therefore be used instead of it.

在各种情况下直接测量腹内压。
目的:规范一种直接测量腹内压(IAP)的方法,将测量结果与直肠内压相关联,并比较不同条件下的测量结果。设计:前瞻性开放式研究。地点:埃及教学医院。受试者34例,分为4组:对照组(n = 11),疝组(n = 8);6个脐部和2个切口),肿块(n = 7;脾脏肿大6例,乙状结肠癌1例),肥胖(n = 8;平均比预期权重高40%)。干预措施:在患者休息、拉伤、仰卧、直立以及麻醉前后,使用连接压力传感器的Verres针测量IAP。同时测量直肠内压。主要结果测量:两个测量的可重复性和相关性。结果:疝组在静息和拉伤时的IAP均明显低于对照组(平均(SD) 2.7 (1.5) cm H2O与7.0(5.09)相比,6.1(2.7)与20.5(7.9)相比,均p < 0.01)。体重组和肥胖组在静止状态下均与对照组无差异,但拉伸时压力高于对照组(分别为31.2(1.4)和33.5 (2.07)cm H2O,分别为21.9 (7.3),p < 0.05)。各组麻醉后IAP均显著下降,各组直肠内压与IAP无显著差异。结论:IAP测定方法重复性好。直肠内压与IAP相似,因此可以代替IAP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信