Literature DB >> 9435614

In vivo hydraulic conductivity of muscle: effects of hydrostatic pressure.

J Lofthouse, M F Flessner.   

Abstract

We and others have shown that the loss of fluid and macromolecules from the peritoneal cavity is directly dependent on intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure (Pip). Measurements of the interstitial pressure gradient in the abdominal wall demonstrated minimal change when Pip was increased from 0 to 8 mmHg. Because flow through tissue is governed by both interstitial pressure gradient and hydraulic conductivity (K), we hypothesized that K of these tissues varies with Pip. To test this hypothesis, we dialyzed rats with Krebs-Ringer solution at constant Pip of 0.7, 1.5, 2.2, 3, 4.4, 6, or 8 mmHg. Tracer amounts of 125I-labeled immunoglobulin G were added to the dialysis fluid as a marker of fluid movement into the abdominal wall. Tracer deposition was corrected for adsorption to the tissue surface and for local loss into lymphatics. The hydrostatic pressure gradient in the wall was measured using a micropipette and a servo-null system. The technique requires immobilization of the tissue by a porous Plexiglas plate, and therefore a portion of the tissue is supported. In agreement with previous results, fluid flux into the unrestrained abdominal wall was directly related to the overall hydrostatic pressure difference across the abdominal wall (Pip = 0), but the interstitial pressure gradient near the peritoneum increased only approximately 40% over the range of Pip = 1.5-8 mmHg (20-28 mmHg/cm). K of the abdominal wall varied from 0.90 +/- 0.1 x 10(-5) cm2.min-1.mmHg-1 at Pip = 1.5 mmHg to 4.7 +/- 0.43 x 10(-5) cm2.min-1.mmHg-1 on elevation of Pip to 8 mmHg. In contrast, for the same change in Pip, abdominal muscle supported on the skin side had a significantly lower range of fluid flux (0.89-1.7 x 10(-4) vs. 1.9-10.1 x 10(-4) ml.min-1.cm-2 in unsupported tissue). The differences between supported and unsupported tissues are likely explained in part by a reduced pressure gradient across the supported tissue. In conclusion, the in vivo hydraulic conductivity of the unsupported abdominal wall muscle in anesthetized rats varies with the superimposed hydrostatic pressure within the peritoneal cavity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9435614     DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.1997.273.6.H2774

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Physiol        ISSN: 0002-9513


  6 in total

1.  Plasma appearance rate of intraperitoneal macromolecular tracer underestimates peritoneal lymph flow.

Authors:  El Rasheid Zakaria; Chester J Mays; Paul J Matheson; Ryan T Hurt; Richard N Garrison
Journal:  Adv Perit Dial       Date:  2008

2.  Direct peritoneal resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock: effect of time delay in therapy initiation.

Authors:  El Rasheid Zakaria; R Neal Garrison; Touichi Kawabe; Patrick D Harris
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2005-03

3.  Spatially-resolved hydraulic conductivity estimation via poroelastic magnetic resonance elastography.

Authors:  Adam J Pattison; Matthew McGarry; John B Weaver; Keith D Paulsen
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 10.048

4.  A mixture theory model of fluid and solute transport in the microvasculature of normal and malignant tissues. II: Factor sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validation.

Authors:  M M Schuff; J P Gore; E A Nauman
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 2.259

5.  Computational and experimental models of cancer cell response to fluid shear stress.

Authors:  Michael J Mitchell; Michael R King
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Water removal during automated peritoneal dialysis assessed by remote patient monitoring and modelling of peritoneal tissue hydration.

Authors:  Joanna Stachowska-Pietka; Beata Naumnik; Ewa Suchowierska; Rafael Gomez; Jacek Waniewski; Bengt Lindholm
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-08-02       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.