## 4 Discussion  
Our study shows an increase in abdominal pressure with the use of IS. This effect was non-significantly more accentuated in the upper abdomen than the lower abdomen or pelvis. Therefore, it was found that depending on the location and type of the fluid collection, drainage catheter performance may be enhanced by maintaining catheter patency and by the elevation of the intra-abdominal pressure while using IS for additional circulatory and respiratory benefits (see below). In contrast to previous studies, our study is the first to examine and compare differential elevations in drainage pressure between different abdominal and pelvic regions [16; 17]. This information is important for determining the potential locations and efficacy of intra-abdominal drainage and demonstrates the potential \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Intra-Abdominal Pressure Increases by Region**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Standardized Pull (1500 cc)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Max Pull (Average 1999 cc)**} \\ \hline Upper Abdomen & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Upper Abdomen} \\ \hline Mean \(\pm\) STD & 61.6 \(\pm\) 54.2 & Mean \(\pm\) STD & 82.5 \(\pm\) 54.8 \\ \hline Median & 54.4 & Median & 54.4 \\ \hline Min-Max & 18.1–154 & Min-Max & 27.2–154 \\ \hline Lower Abdomen & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Lower Abdomen} \\ \hline Mean \(\pm\) STD & 42.3 \(\pm\) 18.9 & Mean \(\pm\) STD & 39.3 \(\pm\) 13.8 \\ \hline Median & 36.2 & Median & 36.2 \\ \hline Min-Max & 27.2–63.4 & Min-Max & 27.2–54.4 \\ \hline Pelvis & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Pelvis} \\ \hline Mean \(\pm\) STD & 48.7 \(\pm\) 35.9 & Mean \(\pm\) STD & 54.4 \(\pm\) 35.3 \\ \hline Median & 40.8 & Median & 43.1 \\ \hline Min-Max & 27.2–136 & Min-Max & 22.7–136 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Intra-Abdominal Pressure Increases in Standardized and Max Pull Groups. Intra-abdominal pressure was measured via a pressure monitor that was connected to patients’ drainage catheters. Pressure was recorded in the upper abdomen, lower abdomen, and pelvis at a standardized pull of 1500 ccs and max pull, which averaged 1999 ccs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Abscess** & **Ascites** & **Biloma** & **Cyst** & **Hematoma** \\ \hline Mean (SD) & 52.7 \(\pm\) 36.3 & 40.8 & 95.2 \(\pm\) 83.3 & 71.4 \(\pm\) 37.1 & 27.2 \\ Median & 43.1 & NA & 95.2 & 54.4 & NA \\ Min-Max & 22.7–136 & NA & 36.2–154 & 49.8–127 & NA \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Intra-Abdominal Pressure Increases (mmHg) in Max Pull Grouped by Fluid Collections. utility of incentive spirometry in facilitating intra-abdominal drainage. Furthermore, while incentive spirometry, intra-abdominal pressure, and drainage catheters have each been subjects of individual study, the unique aspect of the current research is the exploration of the interconnected relationship between all three components. Relative to atmospheric pressure, increased intra-abdominal pressure promotes fluid flow from the body to the collection bag. After substantial drainage has occurred, the intra-abdominal pressure and the pressure outside the body will be in equilibrium. At this point, the fluid in the lumen of the catheter will be stagnant; Further increasing the intra-abdominal pressure fosters fluid flow from within the abdomen to the collection bag, increasingly draining the collection. It is important to consider the inspiratory effort in the context of the different fluid collections. One study demonstrated differential viscosities within different fluid collections, with increasing viscosities as follows: water, pseudocysts, blood, and abscess fluid as the most viscous [18]. However, we did not find any significant difference between various fluid collections despite their different viscosities.