Scholarlink

Background <p>Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) are life-threatening complications increasingly recognized in the surgical setting, particularly in complex abdominal wall surgery. Bladder pressure monitoring, although the gold standard, is limited intraoperatively due to constraints related to patient positioning, contamination risk, and procedural interruption. We evaluated the correlation between intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and airway pressure (AWP) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the diagnostic accuracy of AWP for detecting intraoperative IAH.</p> Methods <p>Prospective observational cross-sectional study in ASA I–II patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy at a single tertiary center, Brazil. Data were collected between 2020 and 2021. Sample size was calculated using the Fleiss method (80% power, two-sided α = 0.05, assumed <i>r</i> = 0.30), requiring a minimum of 80 participants. Pneumoperitoneum was increased incrementally (baseline, 5, 10, 15, 20 mmHg). PIP and PLAT were recorded at each level. A linear mixed-effects model (REML) with patient as random intercept was used as the primary correlation analysis; Pearson correlation is reported as a descriptive secondary measure. ROC analyses were performed.</p> Results <p>Of 95 patients assessed, 78 completed the study. Both PIP and PLAT correlated significantly with IAP (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Linear mixed-effects model: PIP β = 0.439 cmH₂O/mmHg (95% CI: 0.410–0.468), <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, ICC = 0.640. PLAT β = 0.134 cmH₂O/mmHg (95% CI: 0.121–0.147), <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, ICC = 0.936. Pearson r (descriptive): PIP <i>r</i> = 0.670 (95% CI: 0.612–0.722); PLAT <i>r</i> = 0.253 (95% CI: 0.157–0.343). PIP increased by 6.99 cmH₂O at IAP 15 mmHg and 8.06 cmH₂O at IAP 20 mmHg. ROC analysis showed excellent diagnostic accuracy for PIP (AUC 0.905, 95% CI: 0.868–0.940), with an optimal cutoff of 24 cmH₂O (84.6% sensitivity, 87.2% specificity). PLAT showed poor diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.695, 95% CI: 0.662–0.737) and is not a reliable clinical surrogate for IAP.</p> Conclusion <p>PIP strongly correlates with IAP and accurately detects intraoperative IAH. PLAT is not recommended as a standalone diagnostic surrogate for IAP. Airway pressure monitoring may serve as a practical, real-time screening tool during abdominal surgery, with particular promise in complex abdominal wall reconstruction.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Airway pressure reliably predicts intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopic surgery

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月26日

查看全文
  • Pedro Ducatti de Oliveira e Silva,
  • Renato Miranda de Melo,
  • José Fernando Bastos Folgosi,
  • Evandro Rocha Cândido,
  • Roberta Martins Carlos Alves,
  • Ênio Chaves de Oliveira

摘要

Background

Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) are life-threatening complications increasingly recognized in the surgical setting, particularly in complex abdominal wall surgery. Bladder pressure monitoring, although the gold standard, is limited intraoperatively due to constraints related to patient positioning, contamination risk, and procedural interruption. We evaluated the correlation between intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and airway pressure (AWP) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the diagnostic accuracy of AWP for detecting intraoperative IAH.

Methods

Prospective observational cross-sectional study in ASA I–II patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy at a single tertiary center, Brazil. Data were collected between 2020 and 2021. Sample size was calculated using the Fleiss method (80% power, two-sided α = 0.05, assumed r = 0.30), requiring a minimum of 80 participants. Pneumoperitoneum was increased incrementally (baseline, 5, 10, 15, 20 mmHg). PIP and PLAT were recorded at each level. A linear mixed-effects model (REML) with patient as random intercept was used as the primary correlation analysis; Pearson correlation is reported as a descriptive secondary measure. ROC analyses were performed.

Results

Of 95 patients assessed, 78 completed the study. Both PIP and PLAT correlated significantly with IAP (p < 0.001). Linear mixed-effects model: PIP β = 0.439 cmH₂O/mmHg (95% CI: 0.410–0.468), p < 0.001, ICC = 0.640. PLAT β = 0.134 cmH₂O/mmHg (95% CI: 0.121–0.147), p < 0.001, ICC = 0.936. Pearson r (descriptive): PIP r = 0.670 (95% CI: 0.612–0.722); PLAT r = 0.253 (95% CI: 0.157–0.343). PIP increased by 6.99 cmH₂O at IAP 15 mmHg and 8.06 cmH₂O at IAP 20 mmHg. ROC analysis showed excellent diagnostic accuracy for PIP (AUC 0.905, 95% CI: 0.868–0.940), with an optimal cutoff of 24 cmH₂O (84.6% sensitivity, 87.2% specificity). PLAT showed poor diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.695, 95% CI: 0.662–0.737) and is not a reliable clinical surrogate for IAP.

Conclusion

PIP strongly correlates with IAP and accurately detects intraoperative IAH. PLAT is not recommended as a standalone diagnostic surrogate for IAP. Airway pressure monitoring may serve as a practical, real-time screening tool during abdominal surgery, with particular promise in complex abdominal wall reconstruction.