The development, feasibility and credibility of intra-abdominal pressure measurement techniques: A scoping review

To provide a comprehensive overview on emerging direct and alternative methods for intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement techniques.

This was a scoping review study following Arksey and Malley's framework. The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO, Scopus and ProQuest databases were searched, and we only considered studies published from 2000 as we have extended the data from two previous reviews. Original studies that reported on the development, feasibility and credibility of IAP measurement techniques were included.

Forty-two of 9954 screened articles were included. IAP measurement techniques include three major categories: direct, indirect and less invasive measurement techniques. Agreement analyses were performed in most studies, and some explored the safety, time expenditure and reproducibility of IAP measurement techniques.

Clinical data assessing the validation of new IAP measurement techniques or the reliability of established measurement techniques remain lacking. Considering the cost and invasiveness, direct measurement is not recommended as a routine method for IAP measurement and should be preserved for critically ill patients where standard techniques are contraindicated or could be inaccurate. The measurement accuracy, reliability and sensitivity of the transrectal and transfemoral vein methods remain insufficient and cannot be recommended as surrogate IAP measures. Transvesical measurement is the most widely used method, which is the potentially most easy applicable technique and can be used as a reliable method for continuous and intermittent IAP measurement. Wireless transvaginal method facilitates the quantitative IAP measurement during exercise and activity, which laying the foundations for monitoring IAP outside of the clinic environment, but the accuracy of this technique in measuring absolute IAP cannot be determined at present. Less invasive technology will become a new trend to measure IAP and has substantial potential to replace traditional IAP measurement technologies, but further validation and standardization are still needed. Medical professionals should choose appropriate measurement tools based on the advantages and disadvantages of each IAP technique in combination with assessing specific clinical situations.