STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomised controlled, single centre study of 45 patients posted for two level lumbar fixation surgery in the prone position. PURPOSE: To compare intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), mean airway pressure mean airway pressure and blood loss during the spine surgery in prone position using three different positioning systems. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Studies have correlated IAP with the amount of perioperative bleeding. However, IAP and airway pressures while assessing the bleeding comparing two or more prone positioning systems are unclear. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted on a cohort of 45 patients scheduled for two-level lumbar fixation. Patients were randomly allocated to a spine table, Wilson's frame, and thermomodulated pads. Bladder pressure as an indicator of IAP, mean and peak airway pressures, and blood loss were monitored. RESULTS: IAP increased whenever patient position was changed to prone .The increase in pressure was more in the Wilson's frame group but was statistically significant only on prolonged positioning. Adopting the prone position always increased the mean airway pressure, but the increased was significant only in the Wilson's frame group. Mean airway pressure decreased in the spine table group and was statistically significant. The blood loss in the spine table group was significantly less as compared to the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Positioning on a spine table results in less blood loss and low mean airway pressure. The Wilson's frame results in high IAP, increased mean airway pressure, and more blood loss. The thermomodulated frame increases mean airway pressure and produces a moderate increase in IAP and airway pressure.
Cohort Studies ; Hemorrhage* ; Humans ; Prone Position ; Prospective Studies ; Spine ; Urinary Bladder

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomised controlled, single centre study of 45 patients posted for two level lumbar fixation surgery in the prone position. PURPOSE: To compare intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), mean airway pressure mean airway pressure and blood loss during the spine surgery in prone position using three different positioning systems. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Studies have correlated IAP with the amount of perioperative bleeding. However, IAP and airway pressures while assessing the bleeding comparing two or more prone positioning systems are unclear. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted on a cohort of 45 patients scheduled for two-level lumbar fixation. Patients were randomly allocated to a spine table, Wilson's frame, and thermomodulated pads. Bladder pressure as an indicator of IAP, mean and peak airway pressures, and blood loss were monitored. RESULTS: IAP increased whenever patient position was changed to prone .The increase in pressure was more in the Wilson's frame group but was statistically significant only on prolonged positioning. Adopting the prone position always increased the mean airway pressure, but the increased was significant only in the Wilson's frame group. Mean airway pressure decreased in the spine table group and was statistically significant. The blood loss in the spine table group was significantly less as compared to the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Positioning on a spine table results in less blood loss and low mean airway pressure. The Wilson's frame results in high IAP, increased mean airway pressure, and more blood loss. The thermomodulated frame increases mean airway pressure and produces a moderate increase in IAP and airway pressure.
Cohort Studies ; Hemorrhage* ; Humans ; Prone Position ; Prospective Studies ; Spine ; Urinary Bladder

BACKGROUND: The Achutha Menon Centre Diabetes Risk Score (AMCDRS), which was developed in rural Kerala State, South India, had not previously been externally validated. We examined the performance of the AMCDRS in urban and rural areas in the district of Vellore in the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu, and compared it with other diabetes risk scores developed from India. METHODS: We used the data from 4,896 participants (30 to 64 years) of a cross-sectional study conducted in Vellore (2010 to 2012), to calculate the AMCDRS scores using age, family history, and waist circumference. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AROC) were calculated for undiagnosed and total diabetes. RESULTS: Of the 4,896 individuals surveyed, 274 (5.6%) had undiagnosed diabetes and 759 (15.5%) had total diabetes. The AMCDRS, with an optimum cut-point of ≥4, identified 45.0% for further testing with 59.5% sensitivity, 60.5% specificity, 9.1% PPV, 95.8% NPV, and an AROC of 0.639 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.608 to 0.670) for undiagnosed diabetes. The corresponding figures for total diabetes were 75.1%, 60.5%, 25.9%, 93.0%, and 0.731 (95% CI, 0.713 to 0.750), respectively. The AROC for the AMCDRS was not significantly different from that of the Indian Diabetes Risk Score, the Ramachandran or the Chaturvedi risk scores for total diabetes, but was significantly lower than the AROC of the Chaturvedi score for undiagnosed diabetes. CONCLUSION: The AMCDRS is a simple diabetes risk score that can be used to screen for undiagnosed and total diabetes in low-resource primary care settings in India. However, it probably requires recalibration to improve its performance for undiagnosed diabetes.
Cross-Sectional Studies ; Humans ; India* ; Primary Health Care ; ROC Curve ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Waist Circumference