Measurement of intra-abdominal pressure in term pregnancy: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to assess the feasibility of measuring intra-abdominal pressure in term parturients under spinal anesthesia. METHODS: Intra-abdominal pressure was measured in 20 term parturients after spinal anesthesia for elective caesarean section. Pressure was measured in the supine and 10° left lateral tilt positions with a constant reference point throughout. RESULTS: Intra-abdominal pressure measurement was feasible and safe to perform. Pressure was significantly lower in the left lateral tilt position than supine (10.9 mmHg ± 4.67 vs. 8.9 mmHg ± 4.87, P=0.0004). The range of intra-abdominal pressure in pregnancy was wide, from 2 to 20 mmHg, with >25% of patients resting with pressures above 12 mmHg in both positions. CONCLUSIONS: Under spinal anesthesia, intra-abdominal pressure in >25% of healthy term parturients was > 12 mmHg, which has conventionally been defined as intra-abdominal hypertension. The intra-abdominal pressure in term pregnancy should be performed in the left lateral tilt position to avoid falsely elevated pressure measurements.

Primary laparoscopic and open repair of paraesophageal hernias: a comparison of short-term outcomes.

The choice of the optimal surgical approach for repairing paraesophaeal hernias (PEH) is debated. Our objective is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of primary laparoscopic and open repairs of PEH performed in the Calgary Health Region. A retrospective review of all patients undergoing repair of PEH between October 1999 and February 2005 was performed. The outcome measures evaluated included intra-operative parameters and post-operative variables, mortality rates, recurrence rates and patient satisfaction. A total of 93 patients underwent either a laparoscopic (n = 46) or open (n = 47) primary PEH repair. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a longer mean operative time (3.1 +/- 1.2 hours vs. 2.5 +/- 0.7 hours, P = 0.005) but resulted in a shorter overall hospital stay (5 days [2-16 days]vs. 10 days [5-24 days]; P < 0.001), and fewer post-operative complications (10/46 [22%]vs. 25/47 [53%]P = 0.002). Although the follow-up was short (laparoscopic 16 months; open 18 months), a 9% recurrence rate was reported with both approaches. Patient satisfaction using the Gastroesophageal Disease Health-Related Quality Of Life questionnaire was similar in both groups (P = 0.861) with most patients reporting excellent outcomes (laparoscopic: 32/36 [89%]; open 27/35 [77%]). Our review suggests that the laparoscopic approach is safe with shorter hospital stay and recovery. Although early follow-up suggests that recurrence rates and patient satisfaction are similar, long-term follow-up is required to determine whether the laparoscopic approach will become the procedure of choice.