Volume 2 Supplement 1
Recognition and management of abdominal compartment syndrome among German pediatric intensivists: results of a national survey
© Kaussen et al.; licensee Springer 2012
Published: 5 July 2012
Several decades ago, the beneficial effects of goal-directed therapy, which include decompressive laparotomy (DL) and open abdomen procedures in cases of intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) in children, were proven in the context of closures of abdominal wall defects and large-for-size organ transplantations. Different neonatologic and pediatric disease patterns are also known to be capable of increasing intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). Nevertheless, a considerable knowledge transfer regarding such risk factors has hardly taken place. When left undetected and untreated, IAH threatens to evolve into abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS), which is accompanied by a mortality rate of up to 60% in children. Therefore, the present study looks at the recognition and knowledge of IAH/ACS among German pediatric intensivists.
In June 2010, a questionnaire was mailed to the heads of pediatric intensive care units of 205 German pediatric hospitals.
The response rate was 62%. At least one case of IAH was reported by 36% of respondents; at least one case of ACS, by 25%. Compared with adolescents, younger critically ill children appeared to develop IAH/ACS more often. Routine measurements of IAP were said to be performed by 20% of respondents. Bladder pressure was used most frequently (96%) to assess IAP. Some respondents (17%) only measured IAP in cases of organ dysfunction and failure. In 2009, the year preceding this study, 21% of respondents claimed to have performed a DL. Surgical decompression was indicated if signs of organ dysfunction were present. This was also done in cases of at least grade III IAH (IAP > 15 mmHg) without organ impairment.
Although awareness among pediatricians appears to have been increasing over the last decade, definitions and guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of IAH/ACS are not applied uniformly. This variability could express an ever present lack of awareness and solid prospective data.
Keywordsintra-abdominal pressure intra-abdominal hypertension abdominal compartment syndrome children intensive care unit questionnaire decompressive laparotomy.
The problem of intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) that resulted from an operative closing of a birth defect in the abdominal wall has been recognized for decades in pediatric surgery . Therefore, gastroschisis and omphalocele are regarded as prototypes of illnesses causing IAH [2, 3]. As early as the mid-twentieth century, various expanding abdominoplasties and staged abdominal wall closure techniques [4–7] enabled the development of therapy options to help prevent the deleterious consequences of an increase in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and its transition into abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). This development has expanded into pediatric transplant surgery and has decreased morbidity as well as mortality [8–10]. In the 1970s and 1980s, indirect procedures for measuring IAP via the stomach, rectum, and bladder were established [11–13]. These procedures were developed to ensure intra-operative objectivity. By applying them, a pressure-dependent decision on further therapy has become possible, leading to a further improvement in prognosis. From animal testing and studies performed on adults, it has become clear that a series of other surgical and internistic diseases as well as certain risk factors can also lead to the development of IAH [14–16]. In spite of this progress, pediatric medicine has yet to experience an essential knowledge transfer regarding other illnesses that potentially increase patient risk. This is unfortunate insofar as standardized diagnostics and therapy in adults have recently been shown to reduce the mortality rate by 50% . In line with this, it would be desirable to unmask all risk factors and illnesses also in children. Furthermore, increasing the acceptance of a strict realization of comparable standard operating procedures should be a goal.
The main purpose of this national survey was to achieve an overview of the current situation in Germany. In addition, it aimed to describe the level of awareness concerning IAH and ACS. Moreover, the survey endeavored to evaluate potential risk factors as well as current diagnostic and management modalities in practice.
In June 2010, a questionnaire (see Additional file 1) was mailed to the heads of all pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) of 205 German pediatric departments with an established pediatric residency program. The chair of the department or the senior physician heading the intensive care unit (ICU) was contacted personally via letter. The performance of the present survey was self-financed by the authors. Financial aid was neither offered nor accepted. The investigational period lasted for 10 weeks. A reminder was sent to the units that have failed to respond within 6 weeks. Overall, 360 surveys were distributed. Each double-sided survey contained 16 groups of questions (see Additional file 1) which had to be answered by entering text or multiple choice. Incomplete questionnaires were included.
Child-oriented adapted WSACS consensus definitions
Pressure within the abdominal cavity (in millimeters mercury; measured at end expiration)
7 ± 3 mmHg in critically ill children
APP = MAP - IAP
Sustained or repeated pathological elevation in IAP ≥ 10 mmHg
IAP 10 to 12 mmHg
IAP 13 to 15 mmHg
IAP 16 to 18 mmHg
IAP greater than 18 mmHg
Sustained IAP ≥ 10 mmHg associated with new organ dysfunction/failure
Condition associated with injury or disease in the abdominopelvic region
Condition that does not originate from the abdominopelvic region
Condition in which ACS redevelops after previous surgical or medical treatment of primary or secondary ACS
Therapeutical options to lower IAH
Evacuation of intraluminal contents
Evacuation of intra-abdominal space occupying lesions
Improvement of abdominal wall compliance
Optimization of fluid administration
Optimization of abdominal (APP) and systemic perfusion
Medical, non-invasive options
Gastric/rectal tube Diet
Analgetics and sedatives
Modest fluid administration
Goal-directed fluid administration
Interventional, minimal-invasive options
Continuous venous hemofiltration
Percutaneous catheter drainage
Surgical, invasive options
Descriptive statistic concerning the structure of answering clinics
Structure and orientation of ICU
Administrative affiliation of the ICU
(n = 127)
P + PS collective
A + PS collective
Medical focus of the ICU
(n = 115)
NICU rather than PICU
PICU rather than NICU
Age distribution of treated patients
(n = 112)
Level of medical care at participating NICUs
(n = 113)
Size of ICU/Number of cases in 2009
(n = 112)
< 351 patients/year
351 to 700 patients/year
> 700 patients/year
Part of university hospitals
(n = 118)
Awareness and diagnosis of IAH and ACS
Distribution of responses
Stated question and choices
Occurrence and relevance of IAH/ACS in clinical practice
Decade of first-time diagnosing IAH/ACS:
• Before 1980
• 1980 to 1989
• 1990 to 1999
• 2000 to 2009
Awareness of current WSACS-definitions (tested by free text)
• principle of IAH definition correctly described (increased IAP)
• principle of ACS definition correctly described (IAH + organ dysfunction)
Stated IAP thresholds for IAH
• IAP ≥ 10 mmHg
• IAP ≥ 12 mmHg
• IAP ≥ 15 mmHg
• IAP ≥ 20 mmHg
Frequency of diagnosed IAH at answering ICUs in 2009
• 0 times IAH
• 1 to 10 times IAH
• > 10 times IAH
Frequency of diagnosed ACS at answering ICUs in 2009
• 0 times ACS
• 1 to 5 times ACS
• > 5 times ACS
Distribution of causes of ACS
• Primary ACS
• Secondary ACS
• Not distinguishable
Awareness and use of current WSACS definitions (tested by multiple choice)
• IAH definition correctly chosen (increased IAP)
• ACS definition correctly chosen (increased IAP + new organ dysfunction)
Clinical symptoms stated to be associated with increased IAP in children
• Oliguria to anuria
• From peritonism, to peritonitis, and to acute abdomen
• Abdominal distension
• Hemodynamic insufficiency
• Respiratory insufficiency
• Organ dysfunction (including ileus)
• Radiologic findings
• Impaired venous reflux to increased central venous pressure
Share of respondents stating to measure IAP regularly
Stated reasons for not measuring IAP
• Clinical diagnosis (IAP measurement not necessary)
• Lack of technical equipment
• Lack of therapeutical consequence
• Fear for invasiveness
• Fear for infection
• Fear for additional expenditure
Frequency of measurements among those who stated to measure IAP
• once per day
• two times per day
• three to four times per day
• Continuously (or more than four times per day)
• In cases of clinical signs of IAH or ACS
• In cases of organ dysfunction or failure
Predominantly used indirect IAP measurement methods
• via intra-vesical pressure
• via intra-gastric pressure
• via PIP (PIP increase is a consequence of IAH)
• via central venous pressure
Predominantly used direct IAP measurement methods
• via Spiegelberg® probea (modified brain pressure probe)
• via CAPD catheter
• via surgical drainage
• via intra-abdominal placed cardiac catheter
Share of respondents who stated they would measure IAP more often if the procedure and technical requirements became easier and more standardized
Share of respondents having performed at least one decompressive laparotomy in 2009
Stated survival rate of ACS patients in 2009
• Surgically treated children
• Non-surgically treated children
Share of respondents who would surgically decompress again (if indicated)
Risk factors for IAH and ACS
Definition and diagnosis of IAH and ACS
No more than 3.9% (5/127) of respondents chose IAH/ACS diagnosis criteria, and no more than 16.5% (21/127) chose definitions (B.5 of Table 4) in accordance with the current literature (Table 1). The majority of respondents (99/124) stated that clinical signs exclusively provide the basis for their diagnosis of 'IAH' and 'ACS'. Asked to name symptoms regularly associated with IAH, intensivists most often cited changes of abdominal tension and perimeter (29.6%) as well as impairment of diuresis (19.5%) and hemodynamics (14.2%) (B.5 of Table 4).
Measurement of IAP
When asked whether IAP was measured, 20% of respondents (25/125) answered with yes. Reasons for not measuring IAP are depicted in Table 4. Of the 25 respondents claiming to measure IAP, only 23 delivered further information about their measurement standards (B.6 of Table 4). The cutoff for IAH in children was considered 10 mmHg by 42% of respondents (5/12; B.2 of Table 4). Bladder pressure measurements (24/25) were performed most often to quantify IAP ('gold standard') . Other methods only played a minor role (B.4 of Table 4). The majority, in this case 68.2% of respondents (60/88), stated that they would measure IAP more often if the procedure and technical requirements became easier and more standardized (B.8 of Table 4).
Therapeutical strategies concerning the management of IAH/ACS patients
In contrast with other pediatric diseases with high risk, the problem of IAH in newborns with congenital abdominal wall defects and in children with a need for large-for-size organ transplants appears to become more and more well known. Nevertheless, the results of the present survey seem to emphasize the impression that there is still a considerable lack of knowledge, awareness, and goal-oriented therapy.
So far, only two study groups conducted surveys that focused on pediatric health care providers. During two pediatric congresses (2006 and 2007), Ejike et al. handed out 1,107 questionnaires and received 517 replies (return rate 46.7%) . In contrast to our survey, not only pediatric intensivists (30.2%), but also general pediatricians (3.9%) and pediatric nurses (59.8%) participated. Within the context of another congress in 2010, the same study group repeated this survey among pediatric nurses and compared the results of both surveys with each other (return rate 62.7% (433/691); ).
In 2001, Kimball et al. sent a survey to 4,538 members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine with a response rate of 35.7% . Of the 1,622 respondents, 57 physicians stated that they worked in a PICU (3.5%), and 294 had primary training in pediatrics (18.1%).
Thus, to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to reflect the results of a nationwide survey conducted among pediatric intensivists without bias that is a result of a dependency on different professional groups and congress participants or membership in certain societies.
Awareness and incidence of IAH and ACS
Pediatricians seem to have the impression that IAH occurs more in younger patients. In accordance to our results, Akhobadze et al. found IAH in 18.1% of neonatal cases . For the rest, the incidence of ACS in children is estimated to be 0.6% to 9.8% [19, 24–26]. The best possible explanation for the varying risk could be the different anatomical and physiological circumstances.
Risk factors for IAH and ACS
Each intensivist should also know rare risk factors in order to be able to adequately monitor and medicate at-risk patients (Figures 1 and 2). Risk factors vary substantially depending on the age of pediatric patients; therefore, they may be divided into congenital and acquired causes as well as into neonatal and pediatric origins. While among neonates, abdominal wall defects and necrotizing enterocolitis appear to play a major role; the at-risk profile moves in the direction of trauma among older children.
The survey of Kimball et al.  revealed similar underlying disease patterns. They found 'third spacing' and large volume resuscitation, as well as trauma accompanied by bleeding, to be the most important risk factors. Accordingly, Beck et al. argued that children develop IAH more often on the basis of ischemia-reperfusion states . Consistent with the results of a study performed by Ejike et al. , our results exhibit a trend towards secondary ACS (Tables 1 and 4 (B.3); Figure 1). Further risk factors are described in Figures 1 and 2; however, they are not complete.
Definition and diagnosis of IAH and ACS
Contrary to current definitions, half of the respondents stated that IAH and ACS would be diagnosed using clinical criteria alone. This was despite the fact that neither clinical exam nor abdominal perimeter has proven to be accurate parameters and delivers a sensitivity of no more than 50% [27–30]. In the study by Kimball et al., 20% of respondents relied solely on the clinical picture , and only 7.2% based the diagnosis of IAH on IAP measurement. This result is similar to the one found in our study. In the investigation of Newcombe et al., the percentage of understanding the correct definition of ACS even dropped when compared with the pre-study of Ejike et al. . At that time, the definition of ACS had been mistaken for that of IAH by 53.2% of their participants . All of these results imply that there is still 'confusion among pediatric health care providers' . They further imply that patients are not being diagnosed correctly and, therefore, are receiving inadequate treatment. Deeming critically ill patients at risk of developing IAH without measuring IAP seems highly dangerous.
Measurement of IAP
In fact, only 20% of our respondents regularly measure IAP compared with 24.2% in the investigation of Ejike et al. . According to Steinau et al. , who recommended four to six hourly control measurements in cases of impending IAH in children, IAP is measured at least six hourly by about 50% of participants claiming to perform measurements. Among them, 17% stated that they measure it continuously. Unfortunately, respondents did not note which kind of technique they used. Commercially available continuous pressure measurement systems [32, 33] appear to display rather an exception than the rule in children.
Regardless of whether measurements are performed continuously or intermittently, indirect methods via the bladder (gold standard)  and the stomach are most often used in children. This is in accordance with former ACS surveys [20–22, 34–40]. All measuring techniques mentioned (B.7 of Table 4) have been examined for their ability to reflect the IAP in children [12, 13, 41–44].
Therapeutical strategies concerning the management of IAH/ACS patients
In cases of imminent or existent IAH, several medical, interventional, and surgical therapy options are available (Table 2). Nonetheless, in the absence of appropriate standards, there seems to be great insecurity regarding which kind of therapy is necessary in which diagnostic constellations.
In cases of persisting or even progressing IAH, all available therapy options should be applied courageously, in an escalating way, without wasting any time. Surprisingly, minimal-invasive decompressive methods, such as peritoneal drainage and paracentesis, seemed to play a minor role and were named in no more than 15% of answers. This was the case although several authors proclaimed their beneficial merits in lowering IAH and avoiding the need for surgical decompression [41, 45–48].
The readiness to decompress surgically is strongly dependent on the age of the patient and the presence of organ dysfunction. When younger children are affected and in cases of ongoing organ failure, intensivists appear to be willing to use invasive therapy forms earlier. This is in accordance with the findings made by Kimball et al. . When one considers their results, pediatric intensivists seem to have become more familiar with invasive rescue therapies over the last decade. This might be a sign of a deeper comprehension of the detrimental pathophysiological effects of IAH. In comparison with adults, however, invasive procedures are the absolute exception and applied much less. Whether this can be traced back to a special reluctance among pediatricians and pediatric surgeons cannot be determined using this survey. Further, it cannot be determined whether the majority of underlying pediatric illnesses can be treated successfully in an either non-invasive or minimally invasive way. Nevertheless, it provides arguments for the idea that an aggressive therapy, insofar indicated, can improve the prognosis.
Prognosis of children suffering from ACS
Mortality from ACS accounts for 22% to 60% in children [23–26, 31]. When left untreated, brisk, progressing multi-organ failure (MOF) is said to be an essential underlying reason. Ejike et al.  reported a mortality rate of 50% among critically ill children suffering from primary ACS, 80% of whom had undergone a DL. In contrast, mortality in a secondary ACS group was 67%, 11% of which had undergone decompression. They concluded that mortality among primary ACS patients might be lower because laparotomy is performed earlier, not for the sake of IAH but rather for the sake of the underlying intra-abdominal disorder. Indirectly, this might imply that timely decompression is able to lower morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, the stated survival rate in the present study was lower among surgically treated children when compared with non-invasively treated patients. However, there might be a limited timeframe in which decompression really is able to improve the outcome. If an inflammatory 'point-of-no-return' is surpassed and MOF takes on a life of its own, even decompression is no longer able to prevent death anymore, as shown by De Waele et al. .
The goal of future research must be to develop a standardized diagnostic as well as a therapy algorithm also for children. An initial algorithm was introduced by Steinau et al. ; however, it does not yet contain the IAP limits adapted for children that were suggested by Ejike et al. . That these limits reflect the experience of pediatricians practicing in German hospitals is also shown in the results of our survey. Almost half of all respondents saw an IAP of 10 mmHg as a critical pressure limit for children, which is clearly below the limits for adults defined by the WSACS . That pediatric IAP thresholds must be substantially lower than those used in adults is pathophysiologically explainable by the fact that blood pressures in children and especially in neonates are vastly lower than those in adults. Therefore, also a mild increase in IAP is able to substantially impair local as well as systemic circulation and organ perfusion. Based on the definitions and recommendations published by Ejike et al. , the authors therefore suggest a new scale division concerning different grades of ACS in children (Table 1).
Since it has been shown that indicators as well as risk factors, illnesses, and critical abdominal pressure appear to vary considerably depending on pediatric patient age, an algorithm adapted for each age class must be developed. Further, since our results have shown that the level of skepticism concerning methods for measuring IAP continues to be high in spite of the positive experiences in neonatal and transplant surgery, their effectiveness and harmlessness must be supported by evidence. Only then can it be hoped that the acceptance of diagnostic and therapeutical standards increases and that they are implemented in the treatment of critically ill children.
The goal of all these efforts must be to reduce morbidity and mortality from IAH and ACS significantly by applying the appropriate algorithms. Since the introduction of such standards in the treatment of adults, the indication of ACS could apparently be drastically reduced through an early and courageous therapy for pending or advanced IAH .
Limitations of this survey
Surveys are known to have limitations and represent personal experience rather than objective data. The goal of our survey was to be purely descriptive. Therefore, no absolute conclusion may be drawn using this manuscript alone. That answers were given by interviewees familiar with this particular topic and interested in the resolution of certain unsolved problems might result in a bias towards putative over-recognition.
Some questionnaires were only partially completed, decreasing the strength of the whole investigation. Nonetheless, the omission of certain items might be interpreted as an honest expression of a lack of knowledge. Besides, findings using even few participants who are more familiar with IAH/ACS should be presented in order to offer clinical examples till more evidence-based data are available.
However, data from this survey display a significant lack of consensus and certainty among pediatric intensivists. This observation might help guide future studies with a multicenter prospective randomized approach.
This study describes the results of the first nationwide survey concerning the knowledge of pediatricians on IAH and ACS. Although awareness among pediatricians appears to have been increasing over the last decade, definitions and guidelines regarding diagnosis and therapy of IAH/ACS are not applied uniformly. This variability could be the expression of a continued lack of both awareness and solid prospective data. The latter might lead to the development of accepted standard operating procedures and, ultimately, to lower morbidity and mortality of children with IAH/ACS.
abdominal compartment syndrome
abdominal perfusion pressure
intensive care unit
pediatric intensive care unit
World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome.
The authors would like to thank the heads of neonatologic and pediatric ICUs who sent in their replies. They would also like to thank Ulrike Schulz (http://www.medistat.de) for the statistical analysis and Prof. René Tolba (head of the Institute of Experimental Animal Science, University Hospital RWTH, Aachen) for his scientific advice. The charges on the publication of this article were taken on by means of the promotional programme “Open access publishing” by the German research council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).
This article has been published as part of Annals of Intensive Care Volume 2 Supplement 1, 2012: Diagnosis and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.annalsofintensivecare.com/supplements/2/S1.
- Kidd JN Jr, Jackson RJ, Smith SD, Wagner CW: Evolution of staged versus primary closure of gastroschisis. Ann Surg 2003, 237: 759–764.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Watson RA, Howdieshell TR: Abdominal compartment syndrome. South Med J 1998, 91: 326–332. 10.1097/00007611-199804000-00002PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- DeCou JM, Abrams RS, Miller RS, Gauderer MW: Abdominal compartment syndrome in children: experience with three cases. J Pediatr Surg 2000, 35: 840–842. 10.1053/jpsu.2000.6857PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gross RE: A new method for surgical treatment of large omphaloceles. Surgery 1948, 24: 277–292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Allen RG, Wrenn EL Jr: Silon as a sac in the treatment of omphalocele and gastroschisis. J Pediatr Surg 1969, 4: 3–8. 10.1016/0022-3468(69)90177-8PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Clark RH, Walker MW, Gauderer MW: Factors associated with mortality in neonates with gastroschisis. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2011, 21: 21–24. 10.1055/s-0030-1262791PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schuster SR: A new method for the staged repair of large omphaloceles. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1967, 125: 837–850.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pentlow A, Smart NJ, Richards SK, Inward CD, Morgan JD: The use of porcine dermal collagen implants in assisting abdominal wall closure of pediatric renal transplant recipients with donor size discrepancy. Pediatr Transplant 2008, 12: 20–23. 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2007.00824.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ong TH, Strong R, Zahari Z, Yamanaka J, Lynch S, Balderson G, Pillay P: The management of difficult abdominal closure after pediatric liver transplantation. J Pediatr Surg 1996, 31: 295–296. 10.1016/S0022-3468(96)90019-6PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Karpelowsky JS, Thomas G, Shun A: Definitive abdominal wall closure using a porcine intestinal submucosa biodegradable membrane in pediatric transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 2009, 13: 285–289. 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2008.01086.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lacey SR, Carris LA, Beyer AJ III, Azizkhan RG: Bladder pressure monitoring significantly enhances care of infants with abdominal wall defects: a prospective clinical study. J Pediatr Surg 1993, 28: 1370–1374. 10.1016/S0022-3468(05)80329-XPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lacey SR, Bruce J, Brooks SP, Griswald J, Ferguson W, Allen JE, Jewett TC Jr, Karp MP, Cooney DR: The relative merits of various methods of indirect measurement of intraabdominal pressure as a guide to closure of abdominal wall defects. J Pediatr Surg 1987, 22: 1207–1211. 10.1016/S0022-3468(87)80739-XPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Banieghbal B, Gouws M, Davies MR: Respiratory pressure monitoring as an indirect method of intra-abdominal pressure measurement in gastroschisis closure. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2006, 16: 79–83. 10.1055/s-2006-924051PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Balogh Z, McKinley BA, Holcomb JB, Miller CC, Cocanour CS, Kozar RA, Valdivia A, Ware DN, Moore FA: Both primary and secondary abdominal compartment syndrome can be predicted early and are harbingers of multiple organ failure. J Trauma 2003, 54: 848–859. 10.1097/01.TA.0000070166.29649.F3PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McNelis J, Marini CP, Jurkiewicz A, Fields S, Caplin D, Stein D, Ritter G, Nathan I, Simms HH: Predictive factors associated with the development of abdominal compartment syndrome in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg 2002, 137: 133–136. 10.1001/archsurg.137.2.133PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- De Waele JJ, De Laet I, Malbrain ML: Rational intraabdominal pressure monitoring: how to do it? Acta Clin Belg Suppl 2007, 62: 16–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cheatham ML, Safcsak K: Is the evolving management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome improving survival? Crit Care Med 2010, 38: 402–407. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b9e9b1PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Malbrain ML, Cheatham ML, Kirkpatrick A, Sugrue M, Parr M, De Waele JJ, Balogh Z, Leppaniemi A, Olvera C, Ivatury R, D'Amours S, Wendon J, Hillman K, Johansson K, Kolkman K, Wilmer A: Results from the international conference of experts on intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. I. Definitions. Intensive Care Med 2006, 32: 1722–1732. 10.1007/s00134-006-0349-5PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ejike JC, Mathur M, Moores DC: Abdominal compartment syndrome: focus on the children. Am Surg 2011, 77: 72–77.Google Scholar
- Ejike JC, Newcombe J, Baerg J, Bahjri K, Mathur M: Understanding of abdominal compartment syndrome among pediatric healthcare providers. Crit Care Res Pract 2010. doi: 10.1155/2010/876013Google Scholar
- Newcombe J, Mathur M, Bahjiri K, Ejike JC: Pediatric critical care nurses' experience with abdominal compartment syndrome. Annals of Intensive Care, in press.
- Kimball EJ, Rollins MD, Mone MC, Hansen HJ, Baraghoshi GK, Johnston C, Day ES, Jackson PR, Payne M, Barton RG: Survey of intensive care physicians on the recognition and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. Crit Care Med 2006, 34: 2340–2348. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000233874.88032.1CPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Akhobadze G, Chkhaidze M, Kanjaradze D, Tsirkvadze I, Ukleba V: Identification, management and complications of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in neonatal intensive care unit (a single centre retrospective analysis). Georgian Med News 2011, 58–64.Google Scholar
- Beck R, Halberthal M, Zonis Z, Shoshani G, Hayari L, Bar-Joseph G: Abdominal compartment syndrome in children. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2001, 2: 51–56. 10.1097/00130478-200101000-00011PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ejike JC, Humbert S, Bahjri K, Mathur M: Outcomes of children with abdominal compartment syndrome. Acta Clin Belg Suppl 2007, 141–148.Google Scholar
- Pearson EG, Rollins MD, Vogler SA, Mills MK, Lehman EL, Jacques E, Barnhart DC, Scaife ER, Meyers RL: Decompressive laparotomy for abdominal compartment syndrome in children: before it is too late. J Pediatr Surg 2010, 45: 1324–1329. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.02.107PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kirkpatrick AW, Brenneman FD, McLean RF, Rapanos T, Boulanger BR: Is clinical examination an accurate indicator of raised intra-abdominal pressure in critically injured patients? Can J Surg 2000, 43: 207–211.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sugrue M, Bauman A, Jones F, Bishop G, Flabouris A, Parr M, Stewart A, Hillman K, Deane SA: Clinical examination is an inaccurate predictor of intraabdominal pressure. World J Surg 2002, 26: 1428–1431. 10.1007/s00268-002-6411-8PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kimball EJ, Kim W, Cheatham ML, Malbrain ML: Clinical awareness of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in 2007. Acta Clin Belg Suppl 2007, (1):66–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Malbrain ML, De Laet I, Van RN, Schoonheydt K, Dits H: Can the abdominal perimeter be used as an accurate estimation of intra-abdominal pressure? Crit Care Med 2009, 37: 316–319. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318192678ePubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Steinau G, Kaussen T, Bolten B, Schachtrupp A, Neumann UP, Conze J, Boehm G: Abdominal compartment syndrome in childhood: diagnostics, therapy and survival rate. Pediatr Surg Int 2011, 27: 399–405. 10.1007/s00383-010-2808-xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- De Keulenaer BL, Regli A, Malbrain ML: Intra-abdominal measurement techniques: is there anything new? Am Surg 2011,77(Suppl 1):S17-S22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Malbrain ML: Different techniques to measure intra-abdominal pressure (IAP): time for a critical re-appraisal. Intensive Care Med 2004, 30: 357–371. 10.1007/s00134-003-2107-2PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mayberry JC, Goldman RK, Mullins RJ, Brand DM, Crass RA, Trunkey DD: Surveyed opinion of American trauma surgeons on the prevention of the abdominal compartment syndrome. J Trauma 1999, 47: 509–513. 10.1097/00005373-199909000-00012PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- De Laet I, Hoste EA, De Waele JJ: Survey on the perception and management of the abdominal compartment syndrome among Belgian surgeons. Acta Chir Belg 2007, 107: 648–652.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tiwari A, Myint F, Hamilton G: Recognition and management of abdominal compartment syndrome in the United Kingdom. Intensive Care Med 2006, 32: 906–909. 10.1007/s00134-006-0106-9PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kirkpatrick AW, Laupland KB, Karmali S, Bergeron E, Stewart TC, Findlay C, Parry N, Khetarpal S, Evans D: Spill your guts! Perceptions of Trauma Association of Canada member surgeons regarding the open abdomen and the abdominal compartment syndrome. J Trauma 2006, 60: 279–286. 10.1097/01.ta.0000205638.26798.dcPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ravishankar N, Hunter J: Measurement of intra-abdominal pressure in intensive care units in the United Kingdom: a national postal questionnaire study. Br J Anaesth 2005, 94: 763–766. 10.1093/bja/aei117PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhou JC, Zhao HC, Pan KH, Xu QP: Current recognition and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among tertiary Chinese intensive care physicians. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2011, 12: 156–162. 10.1631/jzus.B1000185PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nagappan R, Ernest D, Whitfield A: Recognition and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. Crit Care Resusc 2005, 7: 298–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Corcos AC, Sherman HF: Percutaneous treatment of secondary abdominal compartment syndrome. J Trauma 2001, 51: 1062–1064. 10.1097/00005373-200112000-00006PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Davis PJ, Koottayi S, Taylor A, Butt WW: Comparison of indirect methods of measuring intra-abdominal pressure in children. Intensive Care Med 2005, 31: 471–475. 10.1007/s00134-004-2539-3PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Suominen PK, Pakarinen MP, Rautiainen P, Mattila I, Sairanen H: Comparison of direct and intravesical measurement of intraabdominal pressure in children. J Pediatr Surg 2006, 41: 1381–1385. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2006.04.030PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yaster M, Scherer TL, Stone MM, Maxwell LG, Schleien CL, Wetzel RC, Buck JR, Nichols DG, Colombani PM, Dudgeon DL: Prediction of successful primary closure of congenital abdominal wall defects using intraoperative measurements. J Pediatr Surg 1989, 24: 1217–1220. 10.1016/S0022-3468(89)80554-8PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Latenser BA, Kowal-Vern A, Kimball D, Chakrin A, Dujovny N: A pilot study comparing percutaneous decompression with decompressive laparotomy for acute abdominal compartment syndrome in thermal injury. J Burn Care Rehabil 2002, 23: 190–195. 10.1097/00004630-200205000-00008PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sharpe RP, Pryor JP, Gandhi RR, Stafford PW, Nance ML: Abdominal compartment syndrome in the pediatric blunt trauma patient treated with paracentesis: report of two cases. J Trauma 2002, 53: 380–382. 10.1097/00005373-200208000-00034PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Okhuysen-Cawley R, Prodhan P, Imamura M, Dedman AH, Anand KJ: Management of abdominal compartment syndrome during extracorporeal life support. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2007, 8: 177–179. 10.1097/01.PCC.0000257102.53488.5EPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cheatham ML, Safcsak K: Percutaneous catheter decompression in the treatment of elevated intra-abdominal pressure. Chest 2011, 140: 1428–1435. 10.1378/chest.10-2789PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- De Waele JJ, Hoste EA, Malbrain ML: Decompressive laparotomy for abdominal compartment syndrome - a critical analysis. Crit Care 2006, 10: R51. 10.1186/cc4870PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cheatham ML, Malbrain ML, Kirkpatrick A, Sugrue M, Parr M, De Waele JJ, Balogh Z, Leppaniemi A, Olvera C, Ivatury R, D'Amours S, Wendon J, Hillman K, Wilmer A: Results from the international conference of experts on intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. II. Recommendations. Intensive Care Med 2007, 33: 951–962. 10.1007/s00134-007-0592-4PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.