Negative-pressure box under continuous suction for shielding against aerosols produced by patients with COVID-19 during abdominal ultrasound-guided intervention.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tani J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7245319 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Negative-pressure box under continuous suction for shielding against aerosols produced by patients with COVID-19 during abdominal ultrasound-guided intervention.
Tani Joji J Kobara Hideki H Nishiyama Noriko N Masaki Tsutomu T
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver 20200523 10
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7300621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1Tools and techniques: understanding EUS-guided liver biopsy needle types and tissue acquisition techniques.
| S-EPMC8573426 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10718338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is widely utilized as a diagnostic modality for intra-abdominal masses, but there remains debate regarding which suction technique, slow pull (SP) or conventional suction (CS), is better. A meta-analysis of reported studies was conducted to compare the diagnostic yields of SP and CS during EUS-guided tissue acquisition.MethodsWe conducted a systematic electronic search using MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical studies comparing SP and CS. We meta-analyzed accuracy, sensitivity, blood contamination and cellularity using the random-effects model.ResultsA total of 17 studies (seven randomized controlled trials, four prospective studies, and six retrospective studies) with 1,616 cases were included in the analysis. Compared to CS, there was a trend toward better accuracy (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 2.27; p=0.07) and sensitivity (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.93; p=0.08) with SP and a significantly lower rate of blood contamination (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; p<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in cellularity between SP and CS, with an OR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.40; p=0.45). When the use of a 25-gauge needle was analyzed, the accuracy and sensitivity of SP were significantly better than those of CS, with ORs of 4.81 (95% CI, 1.99 to 11.62; p<0.01) and 4.69 (95% CI, 1.93 to 11.40; p<0.01), respectively.ConclusionsCompared to CS, SP appears to provide better accuracy and sensitivity in EUSguided tissue acquisition, especially when a 25-gauge needle is used.
| S-EPMC8283288 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9468118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Interventions: the laparoscope colon cancer surgery:Combined general anesthesia and Preoperative abdominal transverse plane block;the laparoscope colon cancer surgery:Combined general anesthesia and Preoperative epidural block block;gastric cancer surgery:Combined general anesthesia and preoperative abdominal transverse plane block;gastric cancer operation:Combined general anesthesia and preoperative epidual block;the laparoscope gastric cancer surgery:Combined general anesthesia and preoperative abdominal transverse plane block;the laparoscope gastric cancer surgery:Combined general anesthesia and Preoperative epidural block block
Primary outcome(s): Intraoperative hemodynamics;VAS scores;The dosage of propofol and remifentanyl;Time of extracted the tube and add analgesic drug;Time before taking liquid meal;Time of pull the urine tube;Length of hospital stay after operation;Time before far;the postoperative hypotension
Study Design: Randomized parallel controlled trial
| 2663119 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:IntroductionIntra-abdominal hypertension and the resulting abdominal compartment syndrome are serious complications of severely ill patients. Diagnosis requires an intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement, which is currently cumbersome and underused. We aimed to test the accuracy of a novel continuous IAP monitor.MethodsAdults having laparoscopic surgery and requiring urinary catheter intra-operatively were recruited to this single-arm validation study. IAP measurements using the novel monitor and a gold-standard foley manometer were compared. After anesthesia induction, a pneumoperitoneum was induced through a laparoscopic insufflator, and five randomly pre-defined pressures (between 5 and 25 mmHg) were achieved and simultaneously measured via both methods in each participant. Measurements were compared using Bland-Altman analysis.ResultsIn total, 29 participants completed the study and provided 144 distinct pairs of pressure measurements that were analyzed. A positive correlation between the two methods was found (R2 = 0.93). There was good agreement between the methods, with a mean bias (95% CI) of -0.4 (-0.6, -0.1) mmHg and a standard deviation of 1.3 mmHg, which was statistically significant but of no clinical importance. The limits of agreement (where 95% of the differences are expected to fall) were -2.9 and 2.2 mmHg. The proportional error was statistically insignificant (p = 0.85), suggesting a constant agreement between the methods across the range of values tested. The percentage error was 10.7%.ConclusionsContinuous IAP measurements using the novel monitor performed well in the clinical setup of controlled intra-abdominal hypertension across the evaluated range of pressures. Further studies should expand the range to more pathological values.
| S-EPMC9967253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveThoracic epidural analgesia has traditionally been used for pain management after open abdominal surgery, but its use has declined. The quest for efficient alternatives has resulted in the increasing use of regional techniques. These can be applied as single-shot or continuous blocks using catheters. Long-acting liposomal bupivacaine could preclude the use of catheters. This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided abdominal wall blocks with liposomal bupivacaine for open abdominal surgery.Databases and data treatmentMedline ALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were systematically searched. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were done by two independent researchers. Inclusion criteria were (1) liposomal bupivacaine in ultrasound-guided abdominal wall blocks for open abdominal surgery, (2) outcome of pain and/or opioid consumption, (3) patients >18 years, and (4) reports published in English.ResultsOf the 1277 studies found, 22 met the inclusion criteria. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (Version 2) tool was used to assess randomized controlled trials. Studies were grouped for clarity. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks were mostly investigated. Data were heterogenic regarding types of surgery, approach to block placement, anesthetic solution injected, and use of intrathecal morphine (ITM).ConclusionsPatients undergoing cesarean section with neuraxial anesthesia and intrathecal morphine benefit from TAP blocks with liposomal bupivacaine, demonstrating reduced opioid consumption and comparable pain. Evidence for other open abdominal surgeries was inconclusive. Abdominal wall blocks with liposomal bupivacaine could be a viable alternative when epidural analgesia is contraindicated.
| S-EPMC11837461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) has been recognized as an important vital sign in critically ill patients. Due to the high prevalence and incidence of intra-abdominal hypertension in surgical (trauma, burns, cardiac) and medical (sepsis, liver cirrhosis, acute kidney injury) patients, continuous IAP (CIAP) monitoring has been proposed. This research was aimed at validating a new CIAP monitoring device, the TraumaGuard from Sentinel Medical Technologies, against the gold standard (height of a water column) in an in vitro setting and performing a comparative analysis among different CIAP measurement technologies (including two intra-gastric and two intra-bladder measurement devices). A technical and clinical guideline addressing the strengths and weaknesses of each device is provided as well. Methods: Five different CIAP measurement devices (two intra-gastric and three intra-vesical), including the former CiMON, Spiegelberg, Serenno, TraumaGuard, and Accuryn, were validated against the gold standard water column pressure in a bench-top abdominal phantom. The impacts of body temperature and bladder fill volume (for the intra-vesical methods) were evaluated for each system. Subsequently, 48 h of continuous monitoring (n = 2880) on top of intermittent IAP (n = 300) readings were captured for each device. Using Pearson's and Lin's correlations, concordance, and Bland and Altman analyses, the accuracy, precision, percentage error, correlation and concordance coefficients, bias, and limits of agreement were calculated for all the different devices. We also performed error grid analysis on the CIAP measurements to provide an overview of the involved risk level due to wrong IAP measurements and calculated the area under the curve and time above a certain IAP threshold. Lastly, the robustness of each system in tracking the dynamic variations of the raw IAP signal due to respirations and heartbeats was evaluated as well. Results: The TraumaGuard was the only technology able to measure the IAP with an empty artificial bladder. No important temperature dependency was observed for the investigated devices except for the Spiegelberg, which displayed higher IAP values when the temperature was increased, but this could be adjusted through recalibration. All the studied devices showed excellent ability for IAP monitoring, although the intra-vesical IAP measurements seem more reliable. In general, the TraumaGuard, Accuryn, and Serenno showed better accuracy compared to intra-gastric measurement devices. On average, biases of +0.71, +0.93, +0.29, +0.25, and -0.06 mm Hg were observed for the CiMON, Spiegelberg, Serenno, TraumaGuard, and Accuryn, respectively. All of the equipment showed percentage errors smaller than 25%. Regarding the correlation and concordance coefficients, the Serenno and TraumaGuard showed the best results (R2 = 0.98, p = 0.001, concordance coefficient of 99.5%). Error grid analysis based on the Abdominal Compartment Society guidelines showed a very low associated risk level of inappropriate treatment strategies due to erroneous IAP measurements. Regarding the dynamic tracings of the raw IAP signal, all the systems can track respiratory variations and derived parameters; however, the CiMON was slightly superior compared to the other technologies. Conclusions: According to the research guidelines of the Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS), this in vitro study shows that the TraumaGuard can be used interchangeably with the gold standard for measuring continuous IAP, even in an empty artificial bladder. Confirmation studies with the TraumaGuard in animals and humans are warranted to further validate these findings.
| S-EPMC10573363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) has an important impact on morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. The SERENNO Sentinel system (Serenno Medical, Yokne'am Illit, Israel) is a novel device that allows automatic and continuous IAP measurements. Aims: Pre-clinical validation in a bench model study comparing the new device with the gold standard method and two other continuous IAP measurement devices. Methods: IAP measurement with the novel SERENNO device (IAPSER) was compared with the gold standard IAPH2O (water column height) and two other automatic and continuous IAP measurement devices: IAPCiM measured via the CiMON device (Pulsion Medical Systems, Munich, Germany) and IAPSPIE measured using the Spiegelberg device (Spiegelberg, Hamburg, Germany), which previously received the CE mark for clinical applications. The IAP measurement was performed six times (n = 6) at each pressure value (between 0 and 35 mmHg) with different methods and the height of the water column in a bench-top phantom was used as the reference IAP for further interpretations. In addition to the quadruple comparisons, intra- and inter-observer variability of IAP measurements were also calculated. Correlation studies and Bland and Altman's analyses were performed in addition to the concordance study. Results: The CiMON and Spiegelberg devices showed a greater dynamic range and standard deviation when recording IAPCiM and IAPSPIE compared with IAPSER. In general, the maximum and minimum values of IAP recorded with each device (at each level of IAPH2O) were significantly different from each other. However, the average values were in very good agreement. The highest correlation was observed between IAPSER and IAPH2O, and IAPSER and IAPSPIE (R = 0.99, p = 0.001 for both comparisons and intra- and inter-observer measurements). Although the CiMON and SERENNO systems were in very good agreement with each other, a slightly smaller correlation coefficient was found between them (R = 0.95, p = 0.001, and R = 0.96, p = 0.001 for intra- and inter-observer measurements, respectively). When compared to the gold standard (IAPH2O), Bland and Altman's analysis showed a mean difference of +0.44, -0.25, and -0.04 mmHg for the intra-observer measurements and +0.18, -0.75, and -0.58 mmHg for the inter-observer measurements for IAPSER, IAPCiM, and IAPSPIE, respectively. IAPSER showed a small positive bias (overestimation), while IAPCiM and IAPSPIE showed a negative bias (underestimation) when compared to IAPH2O. Further statistical analysis showed a concordance coefficient of 100% with an excellent ability of the SERENNO system in tracking IAPH2O changes. Conclusions: Pre-clinical validation of a new IAP monitoring device (SERENNO) showed very promising results when compared with the gold standard and other continuous techniques; however, clinical trials should be followed as the next stage of the validation process. Based on the actual research guidelines, the SERENNO system can be used interchangeably with the gold standard.
| S-EPMC9410406 | biostudies-literature