Lower intra-abdominal pressure has no cardiopulmonary benefits during laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Comparison of low versus high (standard) intraabdominal pressure during laparoscopic colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate outcomes of low with high intraabdominal pressure during laparoscopic colorectal resection surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing low with high (standard) intraabdominal pressures were included. Our primary outcomes were post-operative ileus occurrence and return of bowel movement/flatus. The evaluated secondary outcomes included: total operative time, post-operative haemorrhage, anastomotic leak, pneumonia, surgical site infection, overall post-operative complications (categorised by Clavien-Dindo grading), and length of hospital stay. Revman 5.4 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one observational study with a total of 771 patients (370 surgery at low intraabdominal pressure and 401 at high pressures) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in all the measured outcomes; post-operative ileus [OR 0.80; CI (0.42, 1.52), P = 0.50], time-to-pass flatus [OR -4.31; CI (-12.12, 3.50), P = 0.28], total operative time [OR 0.40; CI (-10.19, 11.00), P = 0.94], post-operative haemorrhage [OR 1.51; CI (0.41, 5.58, P = 0.53], anastomotic leak [OR 1.14; CI (0.26, 4.91), P = 0.86], pneumonia [OR 1.15; CI (0.22, 6.09), P = 0.87], SSI [OR 0.69; CI (0.19, 2.47), P = 0.57], overall post-operative complications [OR 0.82; CI (0.52, 1.30), P = 0.40], Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 [OR 1.27; CI (0.59, 2.77), P = 0.54], and length of hospital stay [OR -0.68; CI (-1.61, 0.24), P = 0.15].

CONCLUSION

Low intraabdominal pressure is safe and feasible approach to laparoscopic colorectal resection surgery with non-inferior outcomes to standard or high pressures. More robust and well-powered RCTs are needed to consolidate the potential benefits of low over high pressure intra-abdominal surgery.

Impact of neuromuscular block on myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS) incidence in the early postoperative stage of older patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS) is a common and serious complication in older patients. This study investigates the impact of neuromuscular block on the MINS incidence and other cardiovascular complications in the early postoperative stage of older patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.

METHODS

70 older patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection were separated into the deep neuromuscular block group and moderate neuromuscular block group for 35 cases in each group (n = 1:1). The deep neuromuscular block group maintained train of four (TOF) = 0, post-tetanic count (PTC) 1-2, and the moderate neuromuscular block group maintained TOF = 1-2 during the operation. Sugammadex sodium was used at 2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg for muscle relaxation antagonism at the end of surgery. The MINS incidence was the primary outcome and compared with Fisher's exact test. About the secondary outcomes, the postoperative pain was analyzed with Man-Whitney U test, the postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and the incidence of cardiovascular complications were analyzed with Chi-square test, intraoperative mean artery pressure (MAP) and cardiac output (CO) ratio to baseline, length of stay and dosage of anesthetics were compared by two independent samples t-test.

RESULTS

MINS was not observed in both groups. The highest incidence of postoperative cardiovascular complications was lower limbs deep vein thrombosis (14.3% in deep neuromuscular block group and 8.6% in moderate neuromuscular group). The numeric rating scale (NRS) score in the deep neuromuscular block group was lower than the moderate neuromuscular block group 72 h after surgery (0(1,2) vs 0(1,2), P = 0.018). The operation time in the deep neuromuscular block group was longer (356.7(107.6) vs 294.8 (80.0), min, P = 0.008), the dosage of propofol and remifentanil was less (3.4 (0.7) vs 3.8 (1.0), mg·kg-1·h-1, P = 0.043; 0.2 (0.06) vs 0.3 (0.07), μg·kg-1·min-1, P < 0.001), and the length of hospital stay was shorter than the moderate neuromuscular block group (18.4 (4.9) vs 22.0 (8.3), day, P = 0.028). The differences of other outcomes were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining different degrees of the neuromuscular block under TOF guidance did not change the MINS incidence within 7 days after surgery in older patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (10/02/2021, ChiCTR2100043323).

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

Deep neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing an abdominal laparoscopic procedure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred option for many procedures. To properly perform laparoscopic surgery, it is essential that sudden movements and abdominal contractions in patients are prevented, as it limits the surgeon's view. There has been a growing interest in the potential beneficial effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in laparoscopic surgery. Deep NMB improves the surgical field by preventing abdominal contractions, and it is thought to decrease postoperative pain. However, it is uncertain if deep NMB improves intraoperative safety and thereby improves clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of deep neuromuscular blockade versus no, shallow, or moderate neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults undergoing laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures comparing deep NMB to moderate, shallow, or no NMB. We excluded trials that did not report any of the primary or secondary outcomes of our review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life, and 3. proportion of participants with serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. proportion of participants with non-serious adverse events, 5. readmissions within three months, 6. short-term pain scores, 7. measurements of postoperative recovery, and 8. operating time. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 randomised clinical trials with 3898 participants. Most trials included participants undergoing intraperitoneal oncological resection surgery. We present the Peto fixed-effect model for most dichotomous outcomes as only sparse events were reported. Comparison 1: deep versus moderate NMB Thirty-eight trials compared deep versus moderate NMB. Deep NMB may have no effect on mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 115.43; 12 trials, 1390 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life up to four days postoperative (mean difference (MD) 4.53 favouring deep NMB on the Quality of Recovery-40 score, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.09; 5 trials, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; mean difference lower than the mean clinically important difference of 10 points). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB on intraoperatively serious adverse events (deep NMB 38/1150 versus moderate NMB 38/1076; Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.52; 21 trials, 2231 participants; very low-certainty evidence), short-term serious adverse events (up to 60 days) (deep NMB 37/912 versus moderate NMB 42/852; Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 16 trials, 1764 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and short-term non-serious adverse events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35; 11 trials, 1232 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely does not alter the duration of surgery (MD -0.51 minutes, 95% CI -3.35 to 2.32; 34 trials, 3143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if deep NMB alters the length of hospital stay (MD -0.22 days, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.06; 19 trials, 2084 participants; low-certainty evidence) or pain scores one hour after surgery (MD -0.31 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; 22 trials, 1823 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point) and 24 hours after surgery (MD -0.60 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 16 trials, 1404 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point). Comparison 2: deep versus shallow NMB Three trials compared deep versus shallow NMB. The trials did not report on mortality and health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB compared to shallow NMB on the proportion of serious adverse events (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.57; 2 trials, 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3: deep versus no NMB One trial compared deep versus no NMB. There was no mortality in this trial, and health-related quality of life was not reported. The proportion of serious adverse events was 0/25 in the deep NMB group and 1/25 in the no NMB group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effects of deep NMB compared to moderate NMB on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life and duration of surgery compared to moderate NMB, and it may have no effect on the length of hospital stay. Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we do not know what the effect is of deep NMB on non-serious adverse events, pain scores, or readmission rates. Randomised clinical trials with adequate reporting of all adverse events would reduce the current uncertainties. Due to the low number of identified trials and the very low certainty of evidence, we do not know what the effect of deep NMB on serious adverse events is compared to shallow NMB and no NMB. We found no trials evaluating mortality and health-related quality of life.

Translation from manual to automatic endoscopic insufflation enhanced by a pressure limiter

BACKGROUND

Optimal visualization and safety have always been essential in performing any type of endoscopic surgery. However, the safety of automatic gastrointestinal (GI) insufflation has yet to be thoroughly studied, especially when combined with manual insufflation. The current study aimed to verify whether the pressure limiter could lower GI endoluminal pressure during endoscopic procedures and affect the behavioral patterns of endoscopists.

METHODS

A preclinical blinded trial was conducted on endoscopists who had no knowledge regarding the presence of the pressure limiter that prevents a GI endoluminal pressure above 25 mmHg. Endoscopists in group A performed esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with our insufflation device equipped with the pressure limiter, whereas those in group B performed the same procedure without the pressure limiter. During all procedures, endoluminal pressure was continuously monitored. The primary endpoint of the current study was to measure the endoluminal pressure with or without the pressure limiter during esophageal ESD, while the secondary endpoint was to evaluate the effect of the pressure limiter on intraesophageal pressure and perioperative outcomes during esophageal ESD. A questionnaire survey was conducted after each session.

RESULTS

A total of 79 endoscopists were included in this randomized control study. Group A had significantly lower endoluminal pressure than group B (10.6 ± 4.61 vs. 16.25 ± 7.51 mmHg, respectively; p < 0.05). Although two pigs in group B died from tension pneumothorax, none in group A died. Evaluation of lumen expansion, ease of aspiration, and visual field reproducibility were poorer in group A than in group B, although all fell within the acceptable range. Subjective evaluation of usability was divided into two categories, Excellent/Good and Poor/Bad, with no significant differences in any of the items.

CONCLUSIONS

This preclinical study showed that endoscopic treatment with an automatic insufflation system could be performed at lower endoluminal pressure with a pressure limiter, which had no adverse effects on the endoscopist's feels on endoscopic procedures with the device.

The effects of moderate neuromuscular blockade combined with transverse abdominal plane block on surgical space conditions during laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized clinical study

Background

Deep neuromuscular blockade may be beneficial on surgical space conditions during laparoscopic surgery. The effects of moderate neuromuscular blockade combined with transverse abdominal plane block (TAPB) on surgical space conditions during laparoscopic surgery have not been described. This work investigated whether the above combination is associated with similar surgical space conditions to those of deep neuromuscular blockade.

Methods

Eighty patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were randomly divided into two groups. The intervention group was treated with moderate neuromuscular blockade (train-of-four (TOF) count between 1 and 3) combined with TAPB (M group), while the control group was treated with deep neuromuscular blockade (D group), with a TOF count of 0 and a post-tetanic count (PTC) ≥1. Both groups received the same anesthesia management. The distance between the sacral promontory and the umbilical skin during the operation was compared between the two groups. The surgeon scored the surgical space conditions according to a five-point ordinal scale. Patients’ pain scores were evaluated 8 h after the operation.

Results

The distance from the sacral promontory to the umbilical skin after pneumoperitoneum was similar between the D group and M group (16.03 ± 2.17 cm versus 16.37 ± 2.78 cm; P = 0.544). The 95% confidence intervals of the difference in the distance from the sacral promontory to the umbilical skin between the two groups were − 1.45–0.77 cm. According to the preset non-inferior standard of 1.5 cm, (− 1.45, ∞) completely fell within (− 1.50, ∞), and the non-inferior effect test was qualified. No significant difference was found in the surgical rating score between the two groups. The dosage of rocuronium in the group D was significantly higher than that in the group M (P < 0.01). The M group had significantly lower pain scores than the D group 8 h after the operation (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Moderate neuromuscular blockade combined with TAPB applied to laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery can provide surgical space conditions similar to those of deep neuromuscular blockade. In addition, it reduces the use of muscle relaxants, relieves postoperative pain within 4 h after operation, and shorten the extubation time and stay in PACU when neostigmine was used as muscle relaxant antagonist.

Trial registration

chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000034621), registered on July 12, 2020.

Sugammadex, the Guardian of Deep Muscle Relaxation During Conventional and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: A Narrative Review

High intra-abdominal pressure induced by artificial pneumoperitoneum can obviously impair respiratory and circulatory functions and has a negative effect on the prognosis of patients undergoing conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. The application of deep neuromuscular blockade during the operation is reported to lower the intra-abdominal pressure and improve patients’ outcome. However, concern lies in the risks of postoperative residual muscular paralysis with the use of deep neuromuscular blockade. Sugammadex, a specific antagonist for aminosteroids muscle relaxants, can effectively and rapidly reverse rocuronium and vecuronium induced neuromuscular blockade of different depths. Thus, sugammadex allows the ability to safeguard the application of deep neuromuscular blockade in laparoscopic operations and helps to alleviate the adverse complications associated with pneumoperitoneum. Here, we review the application of deep neuromuscular blockade in different laparoscopic surgeries and discuss the benefits and possible risks of sugammadex administration in the reversal of deep neuromuscular blockade in these operations.

A narrative review on the potential benefits and limitations of deep neuromuscular blockade

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular blockade was shown to improve surgical conditions. However, the risk of residual neuromuscular blockade upon extubation prevents anaesthesiologists from maintaining complete paralysis. For this reason, deep NMB is still underused in anaesthesia. This review focused on answering six questions revolving around the use of deep NMB versus moderate NMB.

METHODS

This was a non-exhaustive narrative review based on 6 selected relevant questions: does deep NMB 1) improve surgical conditions? 2) reduce surgical complications? 3) facilitate a reduction in intraoperative pneumoperitoneum pressure (PnP)? 4) does a reduction in intraoperative PnP impact clinical outcomes? 5) does the combination of deep NMB and lower PnP improve respiratory parameters? 6) improve OR efficiency or readmission rates?

RESULTS

This review highlights some of the key studies that have demonstrated potential benefits of deep NMB, but it also included reports showing no benefit, highlighting that the evidence is not unequivocal. Deep NMB does in fact improve surgical conditions, but whether this improvement translates into improved clinical outcomes is far from concluded. Indeed, there is an increased risk or residual curarisation, especially if patients are not monitored and reversed appropriately. The most important benefit of deep NMB may be the prevention of unacceptable surgical working conditions. The other potential major benefits are the reduction in PnP and reduction in pain. Deep NMB must be used with appropriate monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Deep NMB was associated with an improvement in surgical conditions, reduction in PnP, pain, and complications; but further research is needed to definitively prove this relationship.

Comparison of the effects of deep and moderate neuromuscular block on respiratory system compliance and surgical space conditions during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a randomized clinical study

OBJECTIVE

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) requires pneumoperitoneum (Pnp) and a steep head-down position that may disturb respiratory system compliance (C_rs) during surgery. Our aim was to compare the effects of different degrees of neuromuscular block (NMB) on C_rs with the same Pnp pressure during RARP.

METHODS

One hundred patients who underwent RARP were enrolled and randomly allocated to a deep or moderate NMB group with 50 patients in each group. Rocuronium was administered to both groups: in the moderate NMB group to maintain 1-2 responses to train-of-four (TOF) stimulation; and in the deep NMB group to maintain no response to TOF stimulation and 1-2 responses in the post-tetanic count. Pnp pressure in both groups was 10 mmHg (1 mmHg=133.3 Pa). Peak inspiratory pressure (P_peak), mean pressure (P_mean), C_rs, and airway resistance (R_aw) were recorded after anesthesia induction and at 0, 30, 60, and 90 min of Pnp and post-Pnp. Surgical space conditions were evaluated after the procedure on a 4-point scale.

RESULTS

Immediately after the Pnp, P_peak, P_mean, and R_aw significantly increased, while C_rs decreased and persisted during Pnp in both groups. The results did not significantly differ between the two groups at any of the time points. There was no difference in surgical space conditions between groups. Body movements occurred in 14 cases in the moderate NMB group and in one case in the deep NMB group, and all occurred during obturator lymphadenectomy. A significant difference between the two groups was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the same Pnp pressure in RARP, deep and moderate NMBs resulted in similar changes in C_rs, and in other respiratory mechanics and surgical space conditions. However, deep NMB significantly reduced body movements during surgery.

Advantages and pitfalls of clinical application of sugammadex

Sugammadex, a modified γ-cyclodextrin, is one of the drugs focused on in the anesthetic field because it provides rapid and complete reversal from neuromuscular blockade (NMB) by encapsulating rocuronium. Its introduction has revolutionized anesthesia practice because it is a safe, predictable, and reliable neuromuscular antagonist. Hence, its use has increased worldwide. Further, it has been in the spotlight for recovering from deep NMB in laparoscopic surgery and improving the surgical condition. Recently, studies have been conducted on the postoperative outcome after deep NMB and use of sugammadex in various clinical conditions. However, with increase in sugammadex use, reports regarding its complications are increasing. Appropriate dosing of sugammadex with quantitative neuromuscular monitoring is emphasized because under-dosing or over-dosing of sugammadex might be associated with unexperienced complications. Sugammadex is now leaping into an ideal reversal agent, changing the anesthesia practice.

The effect of low- versus normal-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic colorectal surgery on the early quality of recovery with perioperative care according to the enhanced recovery principles (RECOVER): study protocol for a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence for the use of lower insufflation pressures during laparoscopic surgery. Deep neuromuscular blockade allows for a safe reduction in intra-abdominal pressure without compromising the quality of the surgical field. While there is considerable evidence to support superior surgical conditions during deep neuromuscular blockade, there is only a limited amount of studies investigating patient outcomes. Moreover, results are not always consistent between studies and vary between different types of laparoscopic surgery. This study will investigate the effect of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum facilitated by deep NMB on quality of recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The RECOVER study is a multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled trial consisting of 204 patients who will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to group A, low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (8 mmHg) facilitated by deep neuromuscular blockade (post tetanic count of 1-2), or group B, normal-pressure pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg) with moderate neuromuscular blockade (train-of-four response of 1-2). The primary outcome is quality of recovery on postoperative day 1, quantified by the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire.

DISCUSSION

Few studies have investigated the effect of lower insufflation pressures facilitated by deep neuromuscular blockade on patient outcomes after laparoscopic colorectal procedures. This study will identify whether low pressure pneumoperitoneum and deep neuromuscular blockade will enhance recovery after colorectal laparoscopic surgery and, moreover, if this could be a valuable addition to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2018-001485-42. Registered on April 9, 2018. Clinicaltrials.govNCT03608436. Registered on July 30, 2018.

Low intra-abdominal pressure and deep neuromuscular blockade laparoscopic surgery and surgical space conditions: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Low intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) are frequently used in laparoscopic abdominal surgery to improve surgical space conditions and decrease postoperative pain. The evidence supporting operations using low IAP and deep NMB is open to debate.

METHODS

The feasibility of the routine use of low IAP +deep NMB during laparoscopic surgery was examined. A meta-analysis is conducted with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the influence of low IAP + deep NMB vs. low IAP + moderate NMB, standard IAP +deep NMB, and standard IAP + moderate NMB during laparoscopic procedures on surgical space conditions, the duration of surgery and postoperative pain. RCTs were identified using the Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases from initiation to June 2019. Our search identified 9 eligible studies on the use of low IAP + deep NMB and surgical space conditions.

RESULTS

Low IAP + deep NMB during laparoscopic surgery did not improve the surgical space conditions when compared with the use of moderate NMB, with a mean difference (MD) of -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.55-0.37). Subgroup analyses showed improved surgical space conditions with the use of low IAP + deep NMB compared with low IAP + moderate NMB, (MD = 0.63 [95% CI:0.06-1.19]), and slightly worse conditions compared with the use of standard IAP + deep NMB and standard IAP + moderate NMB, with MDs of -1.13(95% CI:-1.47 to 0.79) and -0.87(95% CI:-1.30 to 0.43), respectively. The duration of surgery did not improve with low IAP + deep NMB, (MD = 1.72 [95% CI: -1.69 to 5.14]), and no significant reduction in early postoperative pain was found in the deep-NMB group (MD = -0.14 [95% CI: -0.51 to 0.23]).

CONCLUSION

Low IAP +deep NMB is not significantly more effective than other IAP +NMB combinations for optimizing surgical space conditions, duration of surgery, or postoperative pain in this meta-analysis. Whether the use of low IAP + deep NMB results in fewer intraoperative complications, enhanced quality of recovery or both after laparoscopic surgery should be studied in the future.