Preliminary study of reliability of transcutaneous sensors in measuring intraabdominal pressure.

Early recognition of elevated intraabdominal pressure (IAP) in critically ill patients is essential, since it can result in abdominal compartment syndrome, which is a life-threatening condition. The measurement of intravesical pressure is currently considered the gold standard for IAP assessment. Alternative methods have been proposed, where IAP assessment is based on measuring abdominal wall tension, which reflects the pressure in the abdominal cavity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using patch-like transcutaneous sensors to estimate changes in IAP, which could facilitate the monitoring of IAP in clinical practice. This study was performed with 30 patients during early postoperative care. All patients still had an indwelling urinary catheter postoperatively. Four wearable sensors were attached to the outer surface of the abdominal region to detect the changes in abdominal wall tension. Additionally, surface EMG was used to monitor the activity of the abdominal muscles. The thickness of the subcutaneous tissue was measured with ultrasound. Patients performed 4 cycles of the Valsalva manoeuvre, with a resting period in between (the minimal resting period was 30 s, with a prolongation as necessary to ensure that the fluid level in the measuring system had equilibrated). The IAP was estimated with intravesical pressure measurements during all resting periods and all Valsalva manoeuvres, while the sensors continuously measured changes in abdominal wall tension. The association between the subcutaneous thickness and tension changes on the surface and the intraabdominal pressure was statistically significant, but a large part of the variability was explained by individual patient factors. As a consequence, the predictions of IAP using transcutaneous sensors were not biased, but they were quite variable. The specificity of detecting intraabdominal pressure of 20 mmHg and above is 88%, with an NPV of 96%, while its sensitivity and PPV are currently far lower. There are inherent limitations of the chosen preliminary study design that directly caused the low sensitivity of our method as well as the poor agreement with the gold standard method; in spite of that, we have shown that these sensors have the potential to be used to monitor intraabdominal pressure. We are planning a study that would more closely resemble the intended clinical use and expect it to show more consistent results with a far smaller error.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC. METHODS: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival. RESULTS: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60-400) vs 300 mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.