Laparoscopic bowel resection in the presence of a lumbo-peritoneal shunt: a rare case.

The presence of a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt was previously considered a contra-indication to laparoscopic surgery, however, case reports appeared that describe laparoscopic surgery proceeding with no adverse outcomes in such patients. The majority of these reports relate to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Here we present what we believe to be only the second report of a patient undergoing laparoscopic bowel resection in the presence of a lumbo-peritoneal shunt. With this case we aim to add to the evidence that more major laparoscopic procedures can be performed safely in the presence of CSF shunts and with a brief review of the current evidence, have suggested appropriate monitoring and precautionary measures for approaching these procedures.

Airway pressure release ventilation and biphasic positive airway pressure: a systematic review of definitional criteria.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the definitional criteria for the pressure-limited and time-cycled modes: airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) available in the published literature. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases (1982-2006) were searched using the following terms: APRV, BIPAP, Bilevel and lung protective strategy, individually and in combination. Two independent reviewers determined the paper eligibility and abstracted data from 50 studies and 18 discussion articles. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Of the 50 studies, 39 (78%) described APRV, and 11 (22%) described BIPAP. Various study designs, populations, or outcome measures were investigated. Compared to BIPAP, APRV was described more frequently as extreme inverse inspiratory:expiratory ratio [18/39 (46%) vs. 0/11 (0%), P = 0.004] and used rarely as a noninverse ratio [2/39 (5%) vs. 3/11 (27%), P = 0.06]. One (9%) BIPAP and eight (21%) APRV studies used mild inverse ratio (>1:1 to < or =2:1) (P = 0.7), plus there was increased use of 1:1 ratio [7 (64%) vs. 12 (31%), P = 0.08] with BIPAP. In adult studies, the mean reported set inspiratory pressure (PHigh) was 6 cm H2O greater with APRV when compared to reports of BIPAP (P = 0.3). For both modes, the mean reported positive end expiratory pressure (PLow) was 5.5 cm H2O. Thematic review identified inconsistency of mode descriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Ambiguity exists in the criteria that distinguish APRV and BIPAP. Commercial ventilator branding may further add to confusion. Generic naming of modes and consistent definitional parameters may improve consistency of patient response for a given mode and assist with clinical implementation.