Direct intra-abdominal pressure monitoring via piezoresistive pressure measurement: a technical note

• Main Authors: Dembinski Rolf, Jansen Marc, Binnebösel Marcel, Kaemmer Daniel, Otto Jens, Schumpelick Volker, Schachtrupp Alexander
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2009-04-01
• Series: BMC Surgery
• Online Access: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2482/9/5

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Piezoresistive pressure measurement technique (PRM) has previously been applied for direct IAP measurement in a porcine model using two different devices. Aim of this clinical study was to assess both devices regarding complications, reliability and agreement with IVP in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective cohort study was performed in 20 patients randomly scheduled to receive PRM either by a Coach^®-probe or an Accurate++^®-probe (both MIPM, Mammendorf, Germany). Probes were placed on the greater omentum and passed through the abdominal wall paralleling routine drainages. PRM was compared with IVP measurement by t-testing and by calculating mean difference as well as limits of agreement (LA).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were no probe related complications. Due to technical limitations, data could be collected in 3/10 patients with Coach^®and in 7/10 patients with Accurate++^®. Analysis was carried out only for Accurate++^®. Mean values did not differ to mean IVP values. Mean difference to IVP was 0.1 ± 2.8 mmHg (LA: -5.5 to 5.6 mmHg).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Direct IAP measurement was clinically uneventful. Although results of Accurate++^®were comparable to IVP, the device might be too fragile for IAP measurements in the clinical setting. Local ethical committee trial registration: EK2024</p>