A comparison of three different entry techniques in gynecological laparoscopic surgery: a randomized prospective trial

Transumbilical laparoscopy for pneumoperitoneum establishment: a comprehensive multicentre evaluation affirming safety, feasibility, and a range of clinical benefits

Introduction

Transumbilical laparoscopy (TUL) has emerged as a promising technique for establishing pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, offering potential safety, feasibility, and clinical benefits. This retrospective multicentre study aims to evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of TUL in the management of gallbladder diseases.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 2,543 patients who underwent TUL between 2011 and 2021 across various medical institutions in Italy. Data collection included demographic, clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters. Standardized protocols were followed for preoperative and postoperative management. The TUL technique involved precise anatomical incision and trocar placement.

Results

The study demonstrated favorable outcomes associated with TUL, including a low conversion rate to open surgery (0.55%), minimal intraoperative complications (0.16%), and short hospital stays (average 2.4 days). The incidence of incisional hernias was notably low (0.4%). Comparison with existing literature revealed consistent findings and provided unique insights into the advantages of TUL.

Discussion

Despite limitations, such as the absence of a control group and the retrospective nature of the study, the findings contribute valuable insights to the literature. They inform surgical decision-making and advance patient care in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder diseases.

Conclusion

Transumbilical laparoscopy shows promise as a safe and feasible technique for establishing pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The study's findings support its clinical benefits, including low conversion rates, minimal complications, and short hospital stays. Further research, including prospective studies with control groups, is warranted to validate these results and optimize patient outcomes.

Direct trocar insertion vs. Veress needle technique in laparoscopic surgeries. A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy between Veress needle insertion and direct trocar insertion in laparoscopic surgeries.

METHODS

Relevant clinical trials were retrieved from major databases; Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The following outcomes were pooled for analysis: failed entry, extraperitoneal insufflation, vascular lesion, omental lesion and visceral lesion, site bleeding, reintervention, subcutaneous emphysema, solid organ lesion, and infection of the trocar site. A fixed-effects model was used to analyze homogeneous outcomes, whereas random-effects models were used to analyze heterogeneous outcomes.

RESULTS

We included a total of twelve clinical trials. The pooled analysis showed that the Veress needle was accompanied by a significant increase in the incidences of extraperitoneal insufflation (RR = 0.204; 95% Cl [0.136, 0.307], P=0.001), omental lesion (RR=0.444 95% Cl [0.239, 0.825], P=0.01), and failed entry (RR=0.169 95% Cl [0.101, 0.284], P=0.001). There is no significant difference between both cohort regarding the vascular lesion (RR=0.847 95% Cl [0.259, 2.777), P=0.7), infection of the trocar site (RR=0.583 95%Cl [0.106, 3.216], P=0.5, and visceral lesion (RR=1.308 95% Cl [0.314, 5.438], P=0.7.

CONCLUSION

The DTI was accompanied by a significantly lower incidence of complications such as extraperitoneal insufflation, failed entry, omental lesion, and subcutaneous emphysema. On the other hand, both cohorts showed similar results regarding; vascular lesions, visceral lesions, reintervention, site bleeding, and solid organ lesion.

Major and minor complications in Veress needle (VN) and direct trocar insertion (DTI) for laparoscopic closed-entry techniques: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Direct insertion of the trocar is an alternative method to Veress needle insertion for the creation of pneumoperitoneum. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare these two entry closed techniques.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic review of the literature was done on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and EBSCO.

METHODS

The literature search was constructed until May 01, 2022, around search terms for "Veress," "direct trocar," "needle," "insertion," and "laparoscopic ways of entry." This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA Statement 2020.

RESULTS

Sixteen controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 observational studies were included in the systematic review. We found no significant differences in the risk of major complication during the access manoeuvres between DTI and VN: bowel injuries (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.24-2.36, P = 0.63), major vascular injuries (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 0.56-5.38, P = 0.34), port site hernia (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 0.28-20.71, P = 0.42). DTI has a lower risk of minor complications such as subcutaneous emphysema (OR = 5.19 95% CI: 2.27-11.87, P < 0.0001), extraperitoneal insufflation (OR = 5.93 95% CI: 1.69-20.87, P = 0.006), omental emphysema (OR = 18.41, 95% CI: 7. 01-48.34, P < 0.00001), omental bleeding (OR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.18-4.55, P = 0.01), and lower number of unsuccessful entry or insufflation attempts (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.05-4.81, P = 0.04). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of time required to achieve complete insufflation (MD =  - 15.53, 95% CI: - 91.32 to 60.27, P = 0.69), trocar site bleeding (OR = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.25-1.79, P = 0.42), and trocar site infection (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, 0.34-4.20, P = 0.78).

CONCLUSION

There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of major complications during the access manoeuvres between DTI and VN. A lower number of minor complications were observed in DTI compared with those in Veress access.

Comparison Between Closed and Open Methods for Creating Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background: To study the efficacy of closed and open methods for creating pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy by comparing the two in terms of their outcome and complication. Study Design: Single-centre, prospective, observational study. Materials and study: Purposive sampling method where the inclusion criteria were all patients with cholelithiasis who were advised and consented to laparoscopic cholecystectomy of age 18-70 years were included in the study group. Exclusion criteria include patients with a paraumbilical hernia, a history of upper abdominal surgery, uncontrolled systemic illness, and local skin infection. Sixty cases of cholelithiasis satisfying exclusion and inclusion criteria who underwent elective cholecystectomy during the study period were included. Thirty-one of these cases underwent the closed method, while in the remaining 29 patients open method was adopted. Cases in which pneumoperitoneum created by closed technique were grouped as group A and those by open technique as group B. Parameters comparing the safety and efficacy of the two methods were studied. The parameters were access time, gas leak, visceral injury, vascular injury, need for conversion, umbilical port site hematoma, umbilical port site infection, and hernia. Patients were assessed on the first postoperative day, the seventh postoperative day, and then two months after surgery. Some follow-ups were done telephonically. Results: Out of 60 patients, 31 underwent the closed method, while 29 underwent the open method. Minor complications like gas leak during the procedure was observed more in the open method. The mean access time in the open-method group was less than in the closed-method group. Other complications like visceral injury, vascular injury, need for conversion, umbilical port site hematoma, umbilical port site infection, and hernia were not observed in either group during the allocated follow-up period in the study. Conclusion: Open technique for pneumoperitoneum is as safe and effective as the closed technique.

Laparoscopic entry techniques: Which should you prefer?

BACKGROUND

Despite a debate spanning two decades, no consensus has been achieved about the safest laparoscopic entry technique.

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence about the safety of the main different laparoscopic entry techniques.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Six electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different laparoscopic entry techniques were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Entry-related complications and total time for entry were compared among the different methods of entry calculating pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); P < 0.05 was considered significant.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 25 RCTs (6950 patients) were included. Complications considered were vascular, visceral and omental injury, failed entry, extraperitoneal insufflation, bleeding and infection at the trocar site bleeding, and incisional hernia. Compared to direct trocar, the OR for Veress needle was significantly higher for omental injury (OR 3.65, P < 0.001), for failed entry (OR 4.19, P < 0.001), and for extraperitoneal insufflation (OR 5.29, P < 0.001). Compared to the open method, the OR for Veress needle was significantly higher for omental injury (OR 4.93, P = 0.001), for failed entry (OR 2.99, P < 0.001), for extraperitoneal insufflation (OR 4.77; P = 0.04), and for incisional hernia. Compared to the open method, the OR for direct trocar was significantly lower for visceral injury (OR 0.17, P = 0.002) and for trocar site infection (OR 0.27, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The direct trocar method may be preferred over Veress needle and open methods as a laparoscopic entry technique since it appears associated to a lower risk of complications.

Postoperative transverse colon necrosis due to mesenteric injury during laparoscopic surgery for endometrial carcinoma

Hemorrhage and organ injury have been frequently reported as complications associated with trocar puncture in laparoscopic surgery. This report presents a case of delayed intestinal necrosis due to mesenteric injury. A 76-year-old woman who had a history of distal gastrectomy and adrenal insufficiency was diagnosed with stage IA endometrial cancer. We performed laparoscopic total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The upper abdominal wall and mesentery were adhered, and bleeding from the mesentery was noted during the first trocar puncture of the umbilical region, resulting in ligation and hemostasis. Abdominal pain and fever developed on the third postoperative day, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography demonstrated transverse colon perforation. Emergency laparotomy showed necrosis in the proximal transverse colon and a defect in the marginal artery. Mesenteric injury can lead to delayed intestinal necrosis without intraoperative macroscopic findings. In laparoscopic cases where adhesion is expected, trocar placement should be carefully considered.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of Veress needle entry versus direct trocar entry in gynecologic surgery

Objective

Although many studies have been performed, no consensus exists as to the ideal entry for laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. We sought out to compare the safety of direct trocar insertion with that of the Veress needle entry technique in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

Design

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Setting

We searched Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from their inception through 31 July 2021 for relevant studies. We included only controlled trials and ultimately seven trials were included in our meta-analysis.

Participants

Inclusion criteria included women undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Intervention

The intervention of direct trocar insertion technique compared with Veress needle entry technique.

Main outcome measures

We compared five different outcomes associated with the efficacy and complications of laparoscopic entry.

Results

The pooled analysis showed that Veress needle entry was associated with a significant increase in the incidences of extraperitoneal insufflation (RR=0.177, 95% Cl (0.094 to 0.333), p<0.001), omental injury (RR=0.418, 95% Cl (0.195 to 0.896), p<0.001), failed entry (RR=0.173, 95% Cl (0.102 to 0.292), p<0.001), and trocar site infection (RR=0.404, 95% Cl (0.180 to 0.909), p<0.029). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the visceral injury (RR=0.562, 95% Cl (0.047 to 6.676), p<0.648).

Conclusions

When excluding all data apart from gynecologic surgery, the Veress needle entry technique may have an increased incidence of some, but not all complications of laparoscopic entry. It may also have a higher incidence of failed entry compared with direct entry techniques. Care should be taken in extrapolating these general results to specific surgeon experience levels.

Trial registration number

CRD42021273726

A negative pressure-based visualization technique for abdominal Veress needle insertion

PURPOSE

Abdominal Veress needle insertion is commonly performed to generate a pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopy. Various safety tests are conducted to confirm accurate needle tip positioning into the abdominal cavity. However, these occasionally yield unclear results and do not help directly visualize the peritoneum puncture. We validated a negative pressure-based technique that helps instantly visualize the moment of the Veress needle entry into the abdominal cavity.

METHODS

This study included 761 patients who underwent laparoscopic hernioplasty between 2003 and 2021 that entailed pneumoperitoneum creation using a Veress needle. They were divided into conventional technique (CON) and negative pressure visualization technique (NPV) groups. The patients were propensity score-matched (1:1) to minimize selection bias. To determine whether the technique gave a clear result to the surgeon and precisely informed the moment of entry, failed entry and emphysematous complications were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The propensity score-matching yielded 105 pairs in the matched CON and NPV groups. Failed entry did not occur in the NPV group, whereas it occurred in 8 patients (7.6%) in the CON group (p = 0.004). No patient experienced extraperitoneal emphysema in the matched NPV group, whereas 7 patients (6.7%) in the CON group did (p = 0.007). The groups did not differ in the incidence of omental or mesenteric emphysema.

CONCLUSION

The NPV eliminated the incidence of failed entry and decreased the incidence of extraperitoneal emphysema, indicating that it could simply and adequately inform the moment of needle entry into the abdominal cavity.

Modified Intraumbilical Versus Infraumbilical Entry Method at Laparoscopy: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the optimal laparoscopic entry method. Whether a transumbilical or periumbilical incision is beneficial for the initial peritoneal access has been debated. These 2 methods have their own advocates, since each has its own benefits and disadvantages. Furthermore, the lack of consensus extends to the type of entry technique [Hasson, Veress needle (VN), direct trocar]. We have conducted a study comparing a modified intraumbilical technique (MIT), a novel method that combines a VN insertion through a modified direct-trocar access, with the standard infraumbilical VN technique. Our aim is to determine which technique is a better route for the initial umbilical trocar.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 406 patients from a prospectively maintained database has been performed. Two cohorts of cases have been analyzed (VN=198; MIT=208). Primary outcomes were intraoperative access-related events, entry failure, and long-term wound complications. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and 6 months and yearly thereafter.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous emphysema, extraperitoneal insufflation, and difficult entry (>2 VN insertions) occurred more frequently in the VN group (P=0.011, 0.023, and 0.023, respectively). There were 5 (2.52%) failed entries in the VN group and none in the MIT group (P=0.085). Regarding postoperative complications, seroma of the wound occurred more frequently in the VN group (P=0.033). At a mean follow-up of 18.4 months, 13 (3.20%) trocar-site hernias were detected, equally distributed among both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MIT eliminates the risk of failed entries and some complications associated with the VN technique without an increase in umbilical wound infection and facilitates a proper closure of the umbilical incision to secure a low trocar-site hernia rate. Halfway between open and closed techniques for laparoscopic entry, MIT is a safe and feasible procedure that embodies the advantages of both methods and may constitute an advantageous alternative to the infraumbilical VN entry approach.

Fast, Easy, and Safe Establishment of Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery: The Fingertip Technique

Background and Objectives:

There is no consensus on an ideal abdominal entry in laparoscopic surgery; as such, we aimed to assess the feasibility of the fingertip technique for safe entry and the establishment of pneumoperitoneum in transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery.

Methods:

We prospectively assessed 96 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal surgery between December 2018 and September 2019. For all patients, pneumoperitoneum was performed using the fingertip technique, which we recently defined. The duration of time for initial entry, the occurrence of gas leakage, and the complications were evaluated.

Results:

The median duration of initial entry was 90 (75 – 145) seconds. Pneumoperitoneum was established on the first attempt in all patients. Some events were encountered at the time of implementation of the fingertip technique, such as subcutaneous minor bleeding (5.2%) and gas leakage (4.1%). These events were controlled with cauterization and suturing. There was no visceral or major vascular injury in any patient case.

Conclusions:

The fingertip technique is a fast, safe, and feasible method for establishing pneumoperitoneum in transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery.

Randomized control trial on effectiveness and safety of direct trocar versus Veress needle entry techniques in obese women during diagnostic laparoscopy

PURPOSE

To determine the benefits and safety of direct trocar insertion versus Veress needle technique in obese women undertaking diagnostic laparoscopy procedures.

METHODS

Randomized-controlled trial on 135 obese women undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy and dye test for infertility was conducted. Women were randomly assigned to either direct trocar access (n = 68) or Veress needle access (n = 67) before achieving pneumoperitoneum. The same surgeon executed the laparoscopic techniques with a single-puncture technique. The primary outcome measures included total length of the procedure and incidence of any complications, while the mean laparoscopic entry time, volume of CO₂ required, and total of tries needed to attain successful entry were secondary outcomes. Intention-to-treat principle was applied to analysis.

RESULTS

Women in both groups had similar socio-demographic and clinical characteristics and none were lost to follow-up. The overall length of the procedure was significantly lesser in the direct trocar group compared to the Veress needle group (9.9 ± 6.0 vs 16.7 ± 4.7 min; p < 0.001). No significant differences occurred in other outcomes including mean entry time, volume of CO₂ used, number of attempts for successful entry, and major/minor complications (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct trocar technique may be an effective alternative to Veress needle for pneumoperitoneum in obese women for diagnostic laparoscopy. It has a comparable rapid laparoscopic entry time but a significantly lower duration of the procedure and shorter exposure to anesthesia. Both methods are equally effective as there was no significant difference in the complications recorded. A greater sample trial may be essential for more corroborative substantiation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PACTR201510000999192.

Direct trocar insertion without previous pneumoperitoneum versus insertion after insufflation with Veress needle in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a prospective cohort study

The aim of this study was to determine whether direct trocar entry without prior pneumoperitoneum at umbilical level (DTI) can be a safe alternative to access the abdominal cavity in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. We present a prospective observational analytical study of cohorts, comparing DTI with umbilical entry with trocar after previous insufflation with a Veress needle at umbilical level (V). The study period was performed from June 2013 to April 2016; data was collected on 600 patients who underwent gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in the risk of suffering a complication during the access manoeuvres between DTI (6.49%) and V (7.39%), OR 0.89 (95% CI: 0.42-1.81). The duration of the access manoeuvres was 69 s in DTI and 193 s in V (p < .001). The percentage of patients in whom two or more access attempts were performed was lower in DTI (7.8%) than in V (12.3%) (p > .05). We concluded that DTI is at least as safe as V, regarding the risk of suffering complications arising from access into the abdominal cavity. DTI has advantages with regard to V, such as: the shorter duration of access manoeuvres or the lesser number of unsuccessful entry or insufflation attempts. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? There are few international publications comparing DTI and V. When we conducted a search in PubMed for the terms 'Veress needle and direct trocar insertion', 51 publications were obtained. When we increased the restriction and added the terms 'laparoscopic entry and laparoscopy complications', 27 publications were obtained; thus, the uniqueness of our study. What do the results of this study add? We present a 3-year observational prospective study of cohorts that included 600 patients. The aim of this study was to determine that in laparoscopic gynaecological surgery, DTI is an access method to the abdominal cavity at least as safe as V, with respect to the risk of complications. On the other hand, DTI has some advantages such as the shorter duration of access manoeuvres or the lower number of failed entry attempts. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Given the limited number of publications that compared both techniques, our study indicates that DTI can be a safe alternative for access to abdominal cavity in gynaecological surgery, compared to the traditional V.

Laparoscopic Access: Direct Trocar Insertion Versus Open Technique

INTRODUCTION

Creation of pneumoperitoneum and laparoscopic entry into the abdominal cavity are crucial initial steps of laparoscopic surgery and associated with bowel and major vessel injuries. Various methods have been described in literature such as Veress needle, open access technique (OAT), direct trocar insertion (DTI), and optical port. There is no consensus on the safest method of gaining access to the peritoneal cavity to create a pneumoperitoneum. DTI technique appears to be not well accepted by many due to the fear of causing injuries as it is a blind procedure.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcome of DTI in terms of feasibility and complications with a well-established and widely practiced OAT for a laparoscopic procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine hundred fifty-five participants were randomized to be in either of the two groups, that is, Group "A" for DTI and Group "B" for OAT. The primary endpoint was major complications (bowel, major vessel, and solid organ injury) and the secondary endpoint was port access time and minor complications directly related to access. Patients were assessed on the first postoperative day, at the time of discharge, 3 months, 6 months, and a year after discharge, for complications.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in major complications between DTI and OAT groups, however, DTI was found to be superior to OAT in terms of port access time (P = .01), umbilical port-site hernia, port-site infection, and port-site pain (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

This study further strengthens the literature on DTI being a good and safe technique of laparoscopic access. The technique of DTI is still underutilized and needs to be adopted by surgeons without fear.

Laparoscopic Entry Technique Using a Veress Needle Insertion with and without Concomitant CO2 Insufflation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the time and number of attempts needed for successful Veress needle entry during laparoscopic surgery using concomitant versus subsequent CO₂ insufflation approaches.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

One hundred consecutive patients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery by 2 high-volume laparoscopic surgeons were screened and randomized, and 95 of these were included in the final analysis. Ninety (45 in each group) was the precalculated priori number of patients needed to detect a 50% difference in the time (seconds) to obtain adequate insufflation with 90% power and alpha of 5%.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to either Veress needle entry with concomitant (Con) or subsequent (Sub) CO₂ insufflation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty-six patients were randomized to the Con group and 49 to the Sub group. Patient age, body mass index, prior surgical history, presence of adhesions, and type of procedure performed were similar between both groups. The median time required for adequate insufflation in the Con group was 103.5 seconds (Q1-Q3, 80.0-130.0) compared with 113.0 seconds (Q1-Q3, 102.0-144.0) in Sub group (p = .16). Approximately 89% (95% confidence interval, 80.1%-98.1%) of patients in Con group achieved successful entry in the first attempt compared with only 67% (95% confidence interval, 54.2%-80.0%) in Sub group (p = .01). The incidence of preperitoneal insufflation and failed entry was comparable between the 2 groups. No patient developed solid organ, visceral, or vascular injuries; gas embolism; or case conversion to laparotomy in relation to the Veress needle entry technique.

CONCLUSION

Veress needle entry with concomitant CO₂ insufflation was associated with a higher rate of successful entry during the first attempt of Veress needle insertion. The total time required for insufflation and rates of complications between the 2 techniques were similar.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera (e.g. bowel, bladder) or to vasculature (e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels). No clear consensus has been reached as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registers in January 2018. We also checked the references of articles retrieved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one laparoscopic entry technique versus another. Primary outcomes were major complications including mortality, vascular injury of major vessels and abdominal wall vessels, visceral injury of bladder or bowel, gas embolism, solid organ injury, and failed entry (inability to access the peritoneal cavity). Secondary outcomes were extraperitoneal insufflation, trocar site bleeding, trocar site infection, incisional hernia, omentum injury, and uterine bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques. Most studies selected low-risk patients, and many studies excluded patients with high body mass index (BMI) and previous abdominal surgery. Researchers did not find evidence of differences in major vascular or visceral complications, as would be anticipated given that event rates were very low and sample sizes were far too small to identify plausible differences in rare but serious adverse events.Open-entry versus closed-entryTen RCTs investigating Veress needle entry reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 1086 participants and 10 events of vascular injury were reported. Four RCTs looking at open entry technique reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 376 participants and 0 events of vascular injury were reported. This was not a direct comparison. In the direct comparison of Veress needle and Open-entry technique, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n = 915; I² = N/A, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n = 915: I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n = 865; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mortality with no events in either group. No studies reported gas embolism or solid organ injury.Direct trocar versus Veress needle entryTrial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; N = 3185; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.96; 6 RCTs; n = 1603; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.42; 5 RCTs; n = 1519; I² = 25%; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.06 to 5.65; 3 RCTs; n = 1079; I² = 61%; very low-quality evidence). Four studies reported mortality with no events in either group. Two studies reported gas embolism, with no events in either group.Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n = 186; very low-quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n = 380; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Direct vision entry versus open entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n = 392; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported vascular injury with no events in either arm. Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocarsEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n = 331; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n = 331; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n = 244; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Other studies compared a wide variety of other laparoscopic entry techniques, but all evidence was of very low quality and evidence was insufficient to support the use of one technique over another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.

Complications Related to the Initial Trocar Insertion of 3 Different Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This systematic review aimed to investigate complications related to initial trocar insertion among 3 different laparoscopic techniques: Veress needle (VN) entry, direct trocar entry (DTE), and open entry (OE). A literature search was completed, and complications were assessed. Major vessel injury, gastrointestinal injury, and solid organ injury were defined as major complications. Minor complications were defined as subcutaneous emphysema, extraperitoneal insufflation, omental emphysema, trocar site bleeding, and trocar site infection. Arm-based network meta-analyses were performed to identify the differences in complications among the 3 techniques. Seventeen studies were included in the quantitative analysis. DTE resulted in fewer major complications when compared with VN entry although the difference was not significant (p = .23) as well as significantly fewer minor complications (p < .001). There were no significant differences in minor complications when comparing OE and DTE (p = .74). Fewer major complications were observed with OE compared with VN entry although the difference was not significant (p = .31). There were significantly fewer minor complications for patients who underwent OE (p = .01). DTE patients experienced the least number of minor complications followed by VN entry and OE. In conclusion, major complications are extremely rare, and all 3 insertion methods can be performed without mortality.

Prevention and acute management of biliary injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Expert consensus statement

Gallstone disease is very common and laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures all over the world. Parallel to the increase in the number of laparoscopic cholecystectomies, bile duct injuries also increased. The reported incidence of bile duct injuries ranges from 0.3% to 1.4%. Many of the bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy are not due to inexperience, but are the result of basic technical failures and misinterpretations. A working group of expert hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons, an endoscopist, and a specialist of forensic medicine study searched and analyzed the publications on safe cholecystectomy and biliary injuries complicating laparoscopic cholecystectomy under the organization of Turkish Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery Association. After a series of e-mail communications and two conferences, the expert panel developed consensus statements for safe cholecystectomy, management of biliary injuries and medicolegal issues. The panel concluded that iatrogenic biliary injury is an overwhelming complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and an important issue in malpractice claims. Misidentification of the biliary system is the major cause of biliary injuries. To avoid this, the "critical view of safety" technique should be employed in all the cases. If biliary injury is identified intraoperatively, reconstruction should only be performed by experienced hepatobiliary surgeons. In the postoperative period, any deviation from the expected clinical course of recovery should alert the surgeon about the possibility of biliary injury.

Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis.

Safe and easy access technique for the first trocar in laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Access-related injuries are still an important consideration and may increase morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to present in detail a safe and easy technique for open insertion of the first trocar.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This technique has been used routinely in the vast majority of laparoscopic procedures at first author's department since 1998. The data were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively for the 11-year period of January 2005 through December 2015. The primary site of access is the umbilicus, but this technique can be used for all insertion points.

RESULTS

A total of 2579 laparoscopic surgical interventions were performed. The abdominal access was established in 2252 patients in open and in 321 cases with blind puncture using a Veress needle. There were three cases (0.9 %) of accidental injuries with blind puncture and two cases (0.09 %) with open technique. Injuries sustained with open technique injuries were less severe and immediately discernable. None of the patients were converted to open technique.

CONCLUSION

The method can be used easily and rapidly, even in obese patients. It is safer than blind puncture and reduces costs.

Trocar in conventional laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery as a major cause of iatrogenic trauma to the patient

All laparoscopic procedures, laparoscopic or robotic-assisted, start with a trocar entry. Unfortunately unknown to most, this is an extremely important part of the surgery, as 80% of major vascular injuries and 50% of intestinal injuries occur during this procedure. Laparoscopic first entry is often delegated to trainees with little experience, wrongly assuming that laparoscopic entry is similar to incisional entry at laparotomy. This may result in patient death (mortality of major vascular injuries is 11% and unrecognized intestinal injuries is 5%) or significant temporary or permanent morbidity.

Comparison of Direct Trocar Entry and Veress Needle Entry in Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the direct trocar insertion (DTI) and Veress needle insertion (VNI) techniques in laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-one patients scheduled for bariatric surgery at Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey, were included in this study. In 39 patients, a bladed retractable nonoptical trocar was used for DTI, and VNI was performed in 42 patients. Intraoperative access-related parameters were compared. Data were analyzed with Student's t and chi-squared tests. A P value of <.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable demographic profiles. Laparoscopic entry time was shorter in the DTI group (79.6 ± 94.6 versus 217.6 ± 111.0 seconds; P < .0001). Successful entry rates in the first attempt, CO2 consumptions, failed attempt rates, and overall intraoperative complication rates were similar. However, in the DTI group, 2 patients had mesenteric injuries, and 1 of them required conversion to open surgery due to the mesenteric hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

DTI in obese patients significantly shortens the entry time, but there can be severe complications with DTI when a nonoptical bladed trocar is used blindly. Actually, neither method can be recommended for entry into the abdomen in this population based on our results. If the surgeon has to choose a nonoptical trocar in bariatric surgery, preference for the VNI technique instead of the DTI technique is safer.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialities. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera e.g. the bowel or bladder, or to vasculature e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels. Minor complications can also occur, such as postoperative wound infection, subcutaneous emphysema, and extraperitoneal insufflation. There is no clear consensus as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

This updated review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. In addition, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycINFO were searched through to September 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which one laparoscopic entry technique was compared with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 46 RCTs including three multi-arm trials (7389 participants) and evaluated 13 laparoscopic entry techniques. Overall there was no evidence of advantage using any single technique for preventing major vascular or visceral complications. The evidence was generally of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Open-entry versus closed-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). There was a lower risk of failed entry in the open-entry group (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.63, n = 665, two RCTs, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 31 patients in the closed-entry group will have failed entry compared to between 1 to 20 patients in the open-entry group. No events were reported in any of the studies for mortality, gas embolism or solid organ injury. Direct trocar versus Veress needle entry There was a lower risk of vascular injury in the direct trocar group (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.66, five RCTs, n = 1522, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence) and failed entry (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30, seven RCTs, n = 3104; I ²= 0%; moderate quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 8 patients in the Veress needle group will experience vascular injury compared to between 0 to 5 patients in the direct trocar group; and that 64 patients in the Veress needle group will experience failed entry compared to between 10 to 20 patients in the direct trocar group. The vascular injury significance is sensitive to choice of statistical analysis and may be unreliable. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for visceral (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.24, four RCTs, n = 1438, I(2) = 49%; very low quality evidence) or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.16, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.53, two RCTs, n = 998, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence). No events were recorded for mortality or gas embolism. Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34, one RCT, n = 194; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Direct vision entry versus open-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50, two RCTs, n = 392; low quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67, one RCT, n = 60, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09, one RCT, n = 60; low quality evidence). Vascular injury was reported, however no events occurred. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocars There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = n/a; low quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91, one RCT, n = 244; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Comparisons of other laparoscopic entry techniquesThere was a higher risk of failed entry in the group in which the abdominal wall was lifted before Veress needle insertion than in the not-lifted group (Peto OR 4.44, 95% CI 2.16 to 9.13, one RCT, n = 150; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of visceral injury or extraperitoneal insufflation. The studies had small numbers and excluded many patients with previous abdominal surgery, and women with a raised body mass index. These patients may have unusually high complication rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one laparoscopic entry technique over another.An open-entry technique is associated with a reduction in failed entry when compared to a closed-entry technique, with no evidence of a difference in the incidence of visceral or vascular injury.An advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry was noted for failed entry and vascular injury. The evidence was generally of very low quality with small numbers of participants in most studies; our findings should be interpreted with caution.

Safer trocar insertion for closed laparoscopic access: ex vivo assessment of an improved Veress needle

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery is widely practiced surgical technique in the modern surgical toolbox. The Veress needle insertion technique, while faster and easier, is associated with higher rates of iatrogenic complications (injury to internal organs, major blood vessels, etc.), morbidity and even mortality with a reported overall risk of 0.32% during surgical interventions. In order to increase the safety and ease of closed insertion technique, we designed and tested an improved prototype of the Veress needle.

METHODS

The new Veress needle includes a distal expandable portion that allows elevation of the abdominal wall and safe insertion of the first trocar over it. The needle was assessed by measurement of ease of insertion, ease of trocar advancement, associated tissue damage, device integrity and weight-bearing capacity on an ex vivo Gallus domesticus animal model: The prototype was tested over 20 times using different traction forces. The experiment was qualitatively repeated on an ex vivo porcine model.

RESULTS

In the G. domesticus model, the improved needle supported forces of up to 5.75 kg F. No damage or mechanical malfunction was seen at any stage of the experiment. Needle penetration, ease of trocar insertion, system anchoring and weight-bearing capacity were rated (1-5) by four raters--mean 4.9 ± 0.31. Inter-rater agreement was high (free marginal κ 0.75). The porcine experiment revealed similar ease of use with neither complication nor damage to the abdominal wall.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the new Veress system is easy to use, requires no additional training, non-inferior in its capabilities compared to the traditional Veress needle, with the advantage of improving the safety of the first trocar insertion phase of the operation.

Infection Prevention and Evaluation of Fever After Laparoscopic Hysterectomy

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of hysterectomy. Minimally invasive hysterectomy has lower infection rates than abdominal hysterectomy. The lower SSI rates reflect the role and benefit in infection control of having minimal incisions, rather than a large anterior abdominal wall incision. Despite the lower rates, SSI after laparoscopic hysterectomy is not uncommon.In this article, we review pre-, intra-, and postoperative risk factors for infection. Rates of postoperative fever after laparoscopic hysterectomy and when evaluation for infection is warranted in a febrile patient are also reviewed.

DATABASE

PubMed was searched for English-only articles using National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings(MESH) terms and keywords including but not limited to "postoperative," "surgical site," "infection," "fever," "laparoscopic," "laparoscopy," and "hysterectomy."

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing hospital-acquired infections such as SSI is one of the more effective ways of improving patient safety. Knowledge and understanding of risk factors for infection following laparoscopic hysterectomy enable the gynecologic surgeon or hospital to implement targeted preventive measures.

Pelvic surgical site infections in gynecologic surgery

The development of surgical site infection (SSI) remains the most common complication of gynecologic surgical procedures and results in significant patient morbidity. Gynecologic procedures pose a unique challenge in that potential pathogenic microorganisms from the skin or vagina and endocervix may migrate to operative sites and can result in vaginal cuff cellulitis, pelvic cellulitis, and pelvic abscesses. Multiple host and surgical risk factors have been identified as risks that increase infectious sequelae after pelvic surgery. This paper will review these risk factors as many are modifiable and care should be taken to address such factors in order to decrease the chance of infection. We will also review the definitions, microbiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of pelvic SSIs after gynecologic surgery.

Psoas haematoma as a complication of Veress needle insertion: description of a case and literature review

BACKGROUND

In terms of gynaecological laparoscopic surgery, major complications affecting great vessels, and especially the retroperitoneal ones, are unusual.

CASE PRESENTATION

We introduce a case of a retroperitoneal haematoma associated with psoas muscle pseudoaneurysm, as a side effect of Veress needle insertion, during laparoscopic surgery. Such complication was managed conservatively at first, requiring finally arterial embolisation.

CONCLUSION

Even though potential complications associated with laparoscopic surgery are infrequent, they must not be underestimated, and in some cases might need a multidisciplinary management.

Coming to terms with the fact that the evidence for laparoscopic entry is as good as it gets

Entry to the peritoneal cavity for laparoscopic surgery is associated with defined morbidity, with all entry techniques associated with substantial complications. Debate over the safest entry technique has raged over the last 2 decades, and yet, we are no closer to arriving at a scientifically valid conclusion regarding technique superiority. With hundreds of thousands of patients required to perform adequately powered studies, it is unlikely that appropriately powered comparative studies could be undertaken. This review examines the risk of complications related to laparoscopic entry, current statements from examining bodies around the world, and the medicolegal ramifications of laparoscopic entry complications. Because of the numbers required for any complications study, with regard to arriving at an evidence-based decision for laparoscopic entry, we ask: is the current literature perhaps as good as it gets?

Potential risk of port-site adhesions in patients after laparoscopic myomectomy using radially expanding trocars

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence of port-site adhesions following use of radially expanding trocars (RETs) at laparoscopic myomectomy by observation via second-look laparoscopy (SLL).

METHODS

In a retrospective study, data from patients who underwent SLL after laparoscopic myomectomy between January 2007 and June 2012 at Juntendo University Hospital, Tokyo, were assessed for the incidence of port-site adhesions forming below RET incisional scars when fascial and peritoneal defects had not been closed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 554 patients underwent SLL, and 2176 incisional scars were examined. Adhesions were detected in 15 patients (2.8%); thus, the incidence of port-site adhesions under scars was 0.7% (15/2176). Among these 15 patients, the wounds with adhesions were located as follows: 6 (1.1%) under the umbilical scar, 5 (0.9%) under the right lower abdominal scar, 2 (0.4%) under the left upper abdominal scar, and 2 (0.4%) under the left lower abdominal scar. According to multiple regression analysis, the duration of laparoscopic myomectomy was positively associated with port-site adhesions (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.94; P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

The present data suggest that the incidence of port-site hernias and adhesions under RET incisional scars is low despite the non-closure of fascial and peritoneal defects.

Umbilical stalk elevation technique for safer Veress needle insertion in obese patients: a case-control study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare our umbilical stalk elevation (USE) technique with the classic Veress needle (VN) technique in obese patients.

STUDY DESIGN

The USE technique was performed on 40 patients. One control per case was randomly selected from among those undergoing the classic VN technique using a random number table. In USE technique, a 12 mm skin incision was created at the superior crease of the umbilical fold, and the underlying subcutaneous adipose tissue was bluntly dissected using the tip of a fine clamp until the umbilical stalk was isolated at the inferior and central part of the incision. Next, the umbilical stalk was covered and held by a towel clip, and the abdominal wall was elevated by upward traction. The VN was then inserted nearly perpendicular to the incision and turned toward the pelvis immediately after resistance to the needle had been lost. A post-hoc power analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The number of attempts was significantly lower in the USE laparoscopy group than in the classic laparoscopy group (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 2.1 ± 0.7, respectively; P<0.001). The USE technique group had a slightly shorter abdominal entry time than did the classic technique group (328.52 ± 63.71 vs. 434.95 ± 124.10s; P<0.001). Six (7.5%) failed insufflations occurred in our study (5 patients in the classic group vs. 1 patient in the USE group (P=0.10).

CONCLUSION

Our novel USE technique can be an effective means of establishing pneumoperitoneum in obese patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures.