Skip to main content
Fig. 2 | BMC Anesthesiology

Fig. 2

From: Effects of low versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum on renal syndecan-1 shedding and VEGF receptor-2 expression in living-donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled study

Fig. 2

Comparison of renal resistive index (RI), plasma interleukin-6 (IL-6), syndecan-1, soluble VEGFR-2, and urinary KIM-1 between 12 mmHg and 8 mmHg groups. a RI. 12 mmHg vs 8 mmHg: 2-h pneumoperitoneum (0.66 (0.63–0.68) vs 0.67 (0.65–0.70), p = 0.4); 2 h desufflation (0.66 (0.64–0.68) vs 0.68 (0.66–0.70), p = 0.4). Compared to baseline (12 mmHg: 0.59 (0.55–0.62); 8 mmHg: 0.60 (0.55–0.61)) 2-h pneumoperitoneum and 2-h desufflation were significantly higher (p < 0.001). b IL-6 (pg/dL). 12 mmHg vs 8 mmHg: 2-h pneumoperitoneum (8.92 (6.21–11.62) vs 4.75 (3.50–5.99), p = 0.003); 2-h desufflation (46.17 (35.36–56.98) vs 37.42 (27.89–46.95), p = 0.2). Compared to baseline: (12 mmHg: 1.66 (1.41–1.90); 8 mmHg: 1.50 (1.31–1.69)) 2-h pneumoperitoneum and 2-h desufflation were significantly higher (p < 0.001). c Syndecan-1 (ng/mL). 12 mmHg vs 8 mmHg: 2-h pneumoperitoneum 15.18 (11.14–19.22) vs 13.66 (10.04–17.27), p = 0.1); 2-h desufflation (12 mmHg: 30.52 (23.80–37.23) vs 33.12 (25.21–41.02), p = 0.9). Compared to baseline: (12 mmHg: 10.87 (8.81–12.92); 8 mmHg: 12.07 (9.56–14.57)) 2-h pneumoperitoneum and 2-h desufflation were significantly higher (p < 0.001). d sVEGFR-2 (pg/dL). 12 mmHg vs 8 mmHg: 2-h pneumoperitoneum 8106.02 (7187.38–9024.66) vs 6841.05 (5598.85–8083.25), p = 0.032), 2-h desufflation (8452.25 (7486.88–9417.61) vs 7263.92 (6258.32–8269.51); p = 0.044) e KIM-1 (ng/mL). 12 mmHg vs 8 mmHg: 2-h pneumoperitoneum (0.47 (0.33–0.60) vs 0.51 (0.38–0.64), p = 0.7), 2-h desufflation (0.20 (0.12–0.27) vs 0.21 (0.15–0.27), p = 0.7). Compared to baseline: (12 mmHg: 0.32 (0.18–0.45); 8 mmHg: 0.52 (0.36–0.68)) 2-h pneumoperitoneum and 2-h desufflation were significantly different (p < 0.001). All data are presented as geometric mean and confidence interval 95% (minimum–maximum). Continuous data was analyzed using repeated ANOVA. Between-group comparisons were analyzed using unpaired t-test and a general linear model; * p < 0.001, ** p < 0.05

Back to article page