ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Comparison of the Trendelenburg position versus upper-limb tourniquet on internal jugular vein diameter.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral venous cannulation is a necessary invasive procedure for fluid management, haemodynamic monitoring and vasoactive drug therapy. The right internal jugular vein (RIJV) is the preferred site. Enlargement of the jugular vein area facilitates catheterization and reduces complication rates. Common methods to enlarge the RIJV cross-sectional area are the Trendelenburg position and the Valsalva maneuver.
objectiveCompare the Trendelenburg position with upper-extremity venous return blockage using the tourniquet technique.
designProspective clinical study.
settingUniversity hospital. SUBJECTS AND
methodsHealthy adult volunteers (American Society of Anesthesiologists class I) aged 18-45 years were included in the study. The first measurement was made when the volunteers were in the supine position. The RIJV diameter and cross-sectional area were measured from the apex of the triangle formed by the clavicle and the two ends of the sternocleidomastoid muscle, which is used for the conventional approach. The second measurement was performed in a 20° Trendelenburg position. After the drainage of the veins using an Esbach bandage both arms were cuffed. The third measurement was made when tourniquets were inflated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Hemodynamic measurements and RIJV dimensions.
resultsIn 65 volunteers the diameter and cross-sectional area of the RIJV were significantly widened in both Trendelenburg and tourniquet measurements compared with the supine position (P < .001 for both measures). Measurements using the upper extremity tourniquet were significantly larger than Trendelenburg measurements (P=.002 and < .001 for cross-sectional area and diameter, respectively).
conclusionChannelling of the upper-extremity venous return to the jugular vein was significantly superior when compared with the Trendelenburg position and the supine position. LIMITATIONS: No catheterization and study limited to healthy volunteers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.