These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Intra-abdominal pressure during endoscopic full-thickness resection comparing manual and automatic control insufflation: a block-randomized porcine study.
    Author: Kamba S, Kobayashi M, Koizumi A, Ono S, Hara Y, Shimamoto N, Matsui H, Furuhashi H, Ohya TR, Tamai N, Nishikawa M, Nakajima K, Sumiyama K.
    Journal: Surg Endosc; 2020 Apr; 34(4):1625-1633. PubMed ID: 31214802.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: An automatic carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflating system (SPACE) was developed to stabilize intra-lumenal pressure (ILP) during endoscopic interventions. This study investigated whether SPACE could improve the control and monitoring of extra-lumenal intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) after establishing a perforation during endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) of the gastric wall in porcine models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After first establishing the optimal preset pressure for gastric EFTR in four pigs, we compared IAP dynamics during EFTR between manual insufflation and SPACE using a block-randomized study (n = 10). IAP was percutaneously monitored and plotted on a timeline graph every 5 s. The maximal IAP and the area under the IAP curve exceeding 10 mmHg (AUC≥10 mmHg) were compared between groups, with the agreement between IAP and endolumenally monitored ILP also analyzed for animals in the SPACE group. RESULTS: In the first study, 8 mmHg was identified as the most preferable preset pressure after establishment of the perforation. In the randomized study, the mean maximal IAP in the SPACE group was significantly lower than that in the manual insufflation group (11.0 ± 2.0 mmHg vs. 17.0 ± 3.5 mmHg; P = 0.03). The mean AUC≥10 mmHg was also significantly smaller in the SPACE group. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between IAP and ILP within a range of ± 1.0 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: SPACE could be used to control and safely monitor IAP during gastric EFTR by measuring ILP during perforation of the gastric wall.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]