Related Experiment Videos
Direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure in various conditions
A Shafik1, A El-Sharkawy, W M Sharaf
1Department of Surgery and Experimental Research, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt.
Insights
Direct measurement of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is reproducible and correlates well with intrarectal pressure. Intrarectal pressure measurement offers a viable alternative for assessing IAP in clinical settings.
Area of Science:
- Medical Physiology
- Surgical Diagnostics
Background:
- Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is a critical physiological parameter.
- Accurate measurement of IAP is essential for diagnosing and managing various medical conditions.
Purpose of the Study:
- To standardize a direct method for measuring intra-abdominal pressure (IAP).
- To correlate IAP measurements with intrarectal pressure.
- To compare IAP in different patient groups and conditions.
Main Methods:
- A prospective study involving 34 subjects across four groups: control, hernia, mass, and obese.
- Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) was measured using a Verres needle and transducer.
- Intrarectal pressure was measured simultaneously under various conditions (rest, straining, supine, erect, pre/post-anesthesia).
Main Results:
- The direct IAP measurement method demonstrated reproducibility.
- Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) was significantly lower in the hernia group compared to controls.
- Mass and obese groups showed higher IAP during straining, and a significant drop in IAP was observed post-anesthesia.
- No significant difference was found between intrarectal pressure and IAP.
Conclusions:
- The direct method for measuring intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is reproducible.
- Intrarectal pressure measurement is a reliable alternative to direct IAP measurement.
- This finding simplifies IAP assessment in clinical practice.
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.