PDI 2009 ISDP LAC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Perit Dial Int 14(1): 8-16 1994
© 1994 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Waniewski, J
Right arrow Articles by Lindholm, B
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Waniewski, J
Right arrow Articles by Lindholm, B
Peritoneal Dialysis International, Vol 14, Issue 1, 8-16
Copyright © 1994 by International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis


Articles

Methods for estimation of peritoneal dialysate volume and reabsorption rate using macromolecular markers

J Waniewski, O Heimburger, MS Park, A Werynski, and B Lindholm

Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw.

Reabsorption of fluid and solutes from the peritoneal cavity poses several problems for the correct estimation of peritoneal dialysate volume and ultrafiltration rate with macromolecular volume markers. Although physiological mechanisms of peritoneal reabsorption (direct lymphatic absorption vs reabsorption to the peritoneal tissue) are being currently discussed, many experimental and clinical studies have demonstrated that peritoneal reabsorption of the marker is mainly a bulk "backflow" out of the peritoneal cavity. Theoretical bases for the estimation of peritoneal dialysate volume and cumulative ultrafiltration of fluid including the correction for peritoneal reabsorption are reviewed. A widely applied simplified method which, however, neglects the impact of ultrafiltration on marker concentration is also discussed. The systematic errors involved in the application of the simplified method are usually less than 10% in the standard conditions; however, in specific cases they may be much higher. Therefore, the correct method is suggested for practical applications.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Multimed Inc. logo
Copyright © 1994 by Multimed Inc.