Validity and reliability of a novel, non-invasive tool and method to measure intra-abdominal pressure in vivo

The development, feasibility and credibility of intra-abdominal pressure measurement techniques: A scoping review

“…All Forty-two included articles described cohort studies. Of these, thirty-eight were prospective studies [ 17 – 23 , 26 – 40 , 43 – 58 ], and four were retrospective studies [ 24 , 25 , 41 , 42 ]. Two were multicentre research studies [ 19 , 48 ], while the rest were single-centre [ 17 , 18 , 20 – 47 , 49 – 58 ].…”

“…Seventeen studies were conducted on adult ICU patients [ 19 , 23 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 44 – 52 , 54 , 57 ]; four studies were conducted on critically ill children (two assessed PICU patients [ 20 , 23 ], one study assessed pediatric renal transplantation patients [ 24 ], one assessed pediatric liver transplantation patients [ 25 ]); thirteen were conducted on patients undergoing abdominal surgery [ 18 , 26 – 32 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 57 , 58 ], while one was conducted on patients after abdominal surgery [ 50 ]; four were conducted on women [ 31 , 33 , 34 , 51 ], and two were conducted on volunteers [ 17 , 40 ]. The sample size in each study ranged from 5 to 1097 participants.…”

“…Four described abdominal wall tension measurement techniques, of which one used transcutaneous sensors [ 55 ], one used a high-precision resistance strain pressure transducer [ 46 ], one used novel equipment involving a thrust metre and a homemade device to measure the required thrust to produce displacement [ 45 ], and one used a built-in force and distance sensor [ 42 ]. One study described microwave reflectometry [ 29 ], one described a less invasive ultrasonographic method [ 54 ], and one described a novel tool for less invasively characterizing pressurized, physiological vessels comprising a pressure sensor, a distance sensor, and luer-lock connections [ 17 ].…”

“…Three studies were validated in vivo and in vitro [ 23 , 42 , 52 ], while only in vivo validation was conducted in the rest. Bland‒Altman plots was used to conduct agreement analyses in twenty-five studies [ 17 – 23 , 26 – 28 , 32 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 50 – 58 ], and safety validation was conducted in 6 studies [ 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 41 ]. Four studies explored the time expenditure for IAP measurement [ 24 , 25 , 30 , 41 ], and three explored the measure reproducibility, of which one evaluated the intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility [ 37 ], one evaluated the intraobserver reproducibility [ 42 ] and one evaluated the interobserver reproducibility [ 54 ].…”

The relationship between clinical examination measures and ultrasound measures of fascia thickness surrounding trunk muscles or lumbar multifidus fatty infiltrations: An exploratory study

“…Differentiating between fibrosis and fatty infiltration is also an important issue. In the meantime, to help understand the clinical implications of MFI and fibrosis, future studies may also need to combine echogenicity with measures of muscle stiffness, either with the use of shear wave elastography or another procedure involving palpation, ideally with some form of objective quantification (Jacobson & Driscoll, 2021; Jacobson & Driscoll, 2022), to produce a clinically interpretable stiffness‐echogenicity matrix (Stecco et al, 2019).…”