Toma T P, Zighelboim J, Phillips S F, Talley N J
Gastroenterology Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 1996 Mar;8(1):19-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.1996.tb00238.x.
The aim of this study was to compare in vitro various methods for recording intestinal sensitivity and compliance. Relationships between volume and pressure were determined in segments of penrose tubing and pig gut ("artificial intestine') using pressure increments of 2 mmHg (0-24 mmHg). We tested two direct methods of distension of the entire segments (by syringe inflation and the Mayo barostat); we also used three different balloon devices for indirect distension (a 10 cm polyethylene barostat bag, a 10 cm latex condom balloon and a 6 cm latex condom balloon). Maximal distending diameters of the recording systems were measured by injecting from 0 to 160 mL of air. The elastic properties of the balloons were also tested by distensions in air and in rigid tubes. All recording systems accurately detected a lesser compliance of the penrose drain as compared to pig gut. In absolute terms, only the compliance measured with a polyethylene barostat bag distended with a syringe was not different from the compliance of the segment as measured directly. The bellows of our barostat and the latex balloons had significant intrinsic compliances which interfered with the recorded pressure-volume curves. On the other hand, highly compliant plastic bags recorded most faithfully the compliance of artificial gut and that of non-compliant rigid tubes. For comparable volumes of distension, external diameters were larger with the 6 cm latex balloon than with the 10 cm latex balloon or the 10 cm polyethylene barostat balloon. A polyethylene bag distended with a non-compliant air injector (syringe) reflected most accurately the pressure-volume relationships of tubular structures. The different maximal diameters assumed by the three distending devices may explain, in part, why lower volumes of distension are required to elicit symptoms with smaller distending balloons in vivo.
本研究的目的是在体外比较记录肠道敏感性和顺应性的各种方法。使用2 mmHg(0 - 24 mmHg)的压力增量,在彭罗斯引流管段和猪肠道(“人工肠道”)中确定体积与压力之间的关系。我们测试了两种使整个肠段扩张的直接方法(通过注射器充气和梅奥恒压器);我们还使用了三种不同的球囊装置进行间接扩张(一个10 cm的聚乙烯恒压器袋、一个10 cm的乳胶避孕套球囊和一个6 cm的乳胶避孕套球囊)。通过注入0至160 mL空气来测量记录系统的最大扩张直径。还通过在空气中和刚性管中的扩张来测试球囊的弹性特性。与猪肠道相比,所有记录系统都准确检测到彭罗斯引流管的顺应性较低。就绝对值而言,只有用注射器扩张的聚乙烯恒压器袋测量的顺应性与直接测量的肠段顺应性没有差异。我们恒压器的波纹管和乳胶球囊具有显著的固有顺应性,这会干扰记录的压力 - 体积曲线。另一方面,高顺应性的塑料袋最忠实地记录了人工肠道和非顺应性刚性管的顺应性。对于相当的扩张体积,6 cm乳胶球囊的外径比10 cm乳胶球囊或10 cm聚乙烯恒压器球囊的外径大。用非顺应性空气注射器(注射器)扩张的聚乙烯袋最准确地反映了管状结构的压力 - 体积关系。三种扩张装置所呈现的不同最大直径可能部分解释了为什么在体内使用较小的扩张球囊引发症状所需的扩张体积较低。