Protein concentration of subcutaneous interstitial fluid in the human leg. A comparison between the wick technique and the blister suction technique.

R Haaverstad, I Romslo, S Larsen, H O Myhre
{"title":"Protein concentration of subcutaneous interstitial fluid in the human leg. A comparison between the wick technique and the blister suction technique.","authors":"R Haaverstad,&nbsp;I Romslo,&nbsp;S Larsen,&nbsp;H O Myhre","doi":"10.1159/000179159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The wick technique and the blister suction technique are the most common methods for sampling of subcutaneous interstitial tissue fluid in man. The blister suction technique has the advantage of being less invasive than the wick technique, but the reliability of this method is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the simpler blister suction technique using large (8 mm) blisters could replace the wick technique in the investigation of patients with postreconstructive leg edema. Fifteen patients with ipsilateral leg edema following infrainguinal bypass surgery for lower limb atherosclerosis were investigated. The two different fluid sampling techniques were applied simultaneously on both legs. The concentration of total protein and albumin as well as colloid osmotic pressure of the subcutaneous interstitial tissue fluid in the leg were measured in all fluid samples. Agreement analysis was applied to compare the two methods, while the correspondence between the methods was estimated with linear regression analysis. The agreement index was found to be positive for all variables from the operated as well as from the contralateral control limb. Furthermore, all values were within the agreement limit. The best agreement between the two methods was found for colloid osmotic pressure on the operated side. According to the equation of linear regression, there was a slight overestimation of the wick values compared to the observed blister values. In conclusion, there was a good methodological agreement between the blister suction technique and the wick technique. The less invasive blister suction technique should be regarded as the method of choice for the investigation of subcutaneous interstitial tissue fluid in patients with postreconstructive leg edema.</p>","PeriodicalId":14035,"journal":{"name":"International journal of microcirculation, clinical and experimental","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000179159","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of microcirculation, clinical and experimental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000179159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

Abstract

The wick technique and the blister suction technique are the most common methods for sampling of subcutaneous interstitial tissue fluid in man. The blister suction technique has the advantage of being less invasive than the wick technique, but the reliability of this method is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the simpler blister suction technique using large (8 mm) blisters could replace the wick technique in the investigation of patients with postreconstructive leg edema. Fifteen patients with ipsilateral leg edema following infrainguinal bypass surgery for lower limb atherosclerosis were investigated. The two different fluid sampling techniques were applied simultaneously on both legs. The concentration of total protein and albumin as well as colloid osmotic pressure of the subcutaneous interstitial tissue fluid in the leg were measured in all fluid samples. Agreement analysis was applied to compare the two methods, while the correspondence between the methods was estimated with linear regression analysis. The agreement index was found to be positive for all variables from the operated as well as from the contralateral control limb. Furthermore, all values were within the agreement limit. The best agreement between the two methods was found for colloid osmotic pressure on the operated side. According to the equation of linear regression, there was a slight overestimation of the wick values compared to the observed blister values. In conclusion, there was a good methodological agreement between the blister suction technique and the wick technique. The less invasive blister suction technique should be regarded as the method of choice for the investigation of subcutaneous interstitial tissue fluid in patients with postreconstructive leg edema.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人腿皮下间质液的蛋白质浓度。吸芯法与吸泡法的比较。
灯芯法和吸泡法是人体皮下组织液取样最常用的方法。吸泡技术具有比吸芯技术侵入性小的优点,但该方法的可靠性仍存在争议。本研究的目的是评估使用大(8mm)水疱的简单水疱吸引技术是否可以取代灯芯技术用于治疗术后腿部水肿患者。对15例下肢动脉粥样硬化腹股沟下搭桥术后同侧下肢水肿患者进行了研究。两种不同的液体取样技术同时应用于两条腿。测定了下肢皮下间质组织液中总蛋白、白蛋白浓度及胶体渗透压。采用一致性分析对两种方法进行比较,采用线性回归分析估计两种方法之间的对应关系。协议指数被发现是正的所有变量从手术以及从对侧控制肢体。此外,所有数值均在协议限制范围内。两种方法对手术侧胶体渗透压的测定结果最一致。根据线性回归方程,与观察到的水泡值相比,灯芯值有轻微的高估。总之,吸泡技术和吸芯技术在方法学上有很好的一致性。对于术后腿部水肿患者,应将微创吸泡技术作为研究皮下组织间液的首选方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Measurement of blood perfusion in the dental pulp with laser Doppler flowmetry. Vascular smooth muscle, a multiply feedback-coupled system of high versatility, modulation and cell-signaling variability. Long-term registration of cutaneous microcirculation during general anesthesia. Synergetic interpretation of patterned vasomotor activity in microvascular perfusion: discrete effects of myogenic and neurogenic vasoconstriction as well as arterial and venous pressure fluctuations. Cardiovascular monitoring of elective aortic aneurysm repair using methods of chaos analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1