Advertisement

A comparison of shoulder pressure among different patient stabilization techniques

      Objective

      The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pressure placed on the shoulders as a function of varying degrees of head-down tilt (the Trendelenburg position) and to compare these pressures among 3 different patient-positioning systems.

      Study Design

      Participants were placed in the dorsal-lithotomy position with arms tucked and tilted at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 degrees of head-down tilt. Using a manometer, we measured the pressure (centimeters of water) on the shoulders at each angle for 3 support devices: the Skytron shoulder support (Skytron, Grand Rapids, MI), the Allen shoulder support (Allen Medical Systems, Acton, MA), and the Allen Hug-u-Vac.

      Results

      Among 23 participants, body mass index (mean ± SD) was 24.5 ± 4.3 kg/m2. As the tilt angle increased, so did the shoulder pressure for all support systems. At a 30-degree Trendelenburg position, the Allen Hug-u-Vac transmitted less pressure to the shoulders than the Skytron (right and left, P < .001) and the Allen shoulder supports system (right, P < .001; left, P = .434). Each participant was asked, “Which system was most comfortable?” Seventy-four percent of the participants reported that they preferred the Hug-u-Vac (P < .001).

      Conclusion

      Shoulder pressure increases as tilt angle increases. Of the 3 support systems that were tested, the Allen Hug-u-Vac transmitted less pressure to the shoulders at a 30-degree Trendelenburg position than the Skytron and the Allen shoulder support systems.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Whiteman M.K.
        • Hillis S.D.
        • Jamieson D.J.
        • et al.
        Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000-2004.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 198: 34.e1-34.e7
        • Irvin W.
        • Andersen W.
        • Taylor P.
        • Rice L.
        Minimizing the risk of neurologic injury in gynecologic surgery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 374-382
        • Romanowshi L.
        • Reich H.
        • McGlynn F.
        • Adelson M.D.
        • Taylor P.J.
        Brachial plexus neuropathies after advanced laparoscopic surgery.
        Fertil Steril. 1993; 60: 729-732
        • Shveiky D.
        • Aseff J.N.
        • Iglesia C.B.
        Brachial plexus injury after laparoscopic and robotic surgery.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010; 17: 414-420
        • Kroll D.A.
        • Caplan R.A.
        • Posner K.
        • Ward R.J.
        • Cheney F.W.
        Nerve injury associated with anesthesia.
        Anesthesiology. 1990; 73: 202-207
        • Warner M.A.
        • Martin J.T.
        • Schroeder D.R.
        • Offord K.P.
        • Chute C.G.
        Lower extremity motor neuropathy associated with surgery performed on patients in a lithotomy position.
        Anesthesiology. 1994; 81: 6-12
        • Carroll A.W.
        • Lamb E.
        • Hill A.J.
        • Gill E.J.
        • Matthews C.A.
        Surgical management of apical pelvic support defects: the impact of robotic technology.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23: 1183-1186
        • Paraiso M.F.
        • Walters M.D.
        • Rackley R.R.
        • Melek S.
        • Hugney C.
        Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192: 1752-1758
        • Parasio M.F.
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        • Frick A.
        • Chen C.C.G.
        • Barber M.D.
        Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 1005-1013
        • Flegal K.M.
        • Carroll M.D.
        • Ogden C.L.
        • Curtin L.R.
        Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2008.
        JAMA. 2010; 303: 235-241
        • Collins S.A.
        • Tulikangas P.K.
        • O’Sullivan D.M.
        Effect of surgical approach on physical activity and pain control after sacral colpopexy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206: 438.e1-438.e6