Final proof Starling’s law wrong and G tube hydrodynamic is the correct replacement: New results and critical analytical criticisms of landmark articles

Ahmed N Ghanem

doi:10.31579/2692-9406/035

Abstract

Substantial evidence demonstrating Starling’s law is wrong currently exists. This article presents the final definitive proof that Starling’s law is wrong, and the correct replacement is the hydrodynamic of the G tube. The presented evidence is based on reported and new results of the G tube hydrodynamic and critical analytical criticism of landmark and contemporary impactful articles. The objectives of this article are to affirm applicability to capillary; crossing the editors’ barrier to convince the hardest of critics that the new theory is correct. The new results presented here further affirm this and the critical analytical criticisms reveal many errors that has misled authors into reporting erroneous results and conclusions affirming Starling’s law and its equations are wrong. The new results show the difference between the hydrostatic pressure and the two components of dynamic pressure: Flow and Side pressures. The side pressure is a negative pressure gradient exerted on the wall of G tube built on a scale to capillary ultrastructure of precapillary sphincter and the wide intercellular cleft pores in its wall. This affirms Starling’s law and its equation are wrong and its correct replacement is the magnetic field like phenomenon of the G tube that explain the fast capillary interstitial fluid transfer necessary for viability of cells at rest and during strenuous exercise.

Highlights

This article reports new porous orifice (G) tube results based on new insights, re-analysis, and interpretation of previously reported results
The side pressure is a negative pressure gradient exerted on the wall of G tube built on a scale to capillary ultrastructure of precapillary sphincter and the wide intercellular cleft pores in its wall
I investigated the hydrodynamics of the porous orifice (G) tube built on a scale to the capillary ultrastructure with its precapillary sphincter [18] and wide intercellular cleft pores [19] that allow the passage of plasma proteins

Summary

Introduction

This article reports new porous orifice (G) tube results based on new insights, re-analysis, and interpretation of previously reported results. It addresses issues that critically and analytically criticize landmark articles and two impactful recently reported articles on the wrong Starling’s law [1, 2]. The first article is an account on: “Mathematical model to determine the effect of a sub-glycocalyx space” that aimed to prove the Revised Staring Principle (RSP) as paradigm for reviving Starling’s hypothesis. It is demonstrated here that the derived calculations are based on wrong formulae producing wrong results, graphs, and conclusions in article [2]. Professor Hahn has recently criticized RSP in an article titled: “The Extended “Revised” Starling principle needs clinical validation.”. I have put my mark on this debate by reporting an article titled: “Revised Starling’s Principle (RSP): a misnomer as Starling’s law is proved wrong.” [6].

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion