Laparoscopic entry techniques and complications

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.

Palmer's test usefulness in the correct positioning of the Veress needle and the reduction of complications during laparoscopic access maneuvers

AIM

Abdominal cavity access accounts for 50% of complications during laparoscopic surgery. Different safety maneuvers have been used to try to diminish these. Our study aims to establish the usefulness of Palmer's test in the correct positioning of the Veress needle and the reduction of complications during laparoscopic access maneuvers, when used in addition to the determination of intraabdominal pressure.

METHODS

Prospective observational analytic multi-centered cohort study with 370 patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy between July 2014 and November 2019, comparing the additional use of Palmer's test in 185 patients (Palmer-Test-Yes, PTY), with intraabdominal pressure determination alone in 185 patients (Palmer-Test-No, PTN).

RESULTS

Intergroup homogeneity was described for the basic characteristics of both population samples, except for mean age and percentage of previous laparotomy. A total of 19 complications were recorded, 10 in PTY and 9 in PTN, with no significant differences (P = 0.814). No differences were found in the analysis of these complications, except for the rate of conversion to laparotomy, which occurred four times in the PTY group and none in PTN (P = 0.044). Furthermore, no differences were found once fixed for the history of previous laparotomy (P = 514.), nor for the percentage of successful access after the first attempt between both groups (P = 0.753).

CONCLUSION

Palmer's test, when used in addition to intraabdominal pressure determination, has not shown to be effective in preventing failed access to abdominal cavity or reducing complications associated with access maneuvers with the Veress needle. Hence, its systematic use is not justified, since it could generate a sense of false security.

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.

Comparison of two methods of laparoscopic trocar insertion (Hasson and Visiport) in terms of speed and complication in urologic surgery

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, diverse approaches have been existed for laparoscopic procedures. The most common laparoscopic entry methods included close and direct entry laparoscopy and open (Hasson) laparoscopy. There is no evidence regarding the superiority in safety and initial speed for the use of open and optical laparoscopic entry. Therefore, the sight of current study was to evaluate comparative survey of two methods of laparoscopic trocar insertion (Hasson and VisiportTM) in terms of speed and complications in urologic surgery.

METHODS

This expertized base clinical trial study was conducted on 100 patients who underwent urological laparoscopy in Alzahra Hospital, Isfahan, Iran. These patients were randomly divided to two groups (n = 50). One group underwent open laparoscopy and another group Visiport optical trocar. Speed and Complications of urologic surgery was extracted from medical records. Independent T test was used for doing of analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients in Hasson and Visiport laparoscopic group was 41.4 ± 11.2 and 41.6 ± 15 years old, respectively (p = 0.91). The mean time for initial trocar placement in patients who underwent Visiport trocar system and Hasson laparoscopic technique was 37.7 ± 15.59 and 95.4 ± 31.75 seconds. There was gratifying difference between two techniques of laparoscopic trocar insertion (Hasson and Visiport) in terms of speed (p = 0.000). In addition, complications were observed in 8% of patients who underwent Visiport trocar system. However, no complications were observed in Hasson laparoscopy group.

CONCLUSION

Visiport optical trocar technique is faster for initial trocar placement than open laparoscopy. However it is associated with complications compared to open laparoscopy. Therefore, there is evidence of benefit in terms of speed for initial trocar placement and harm based on complications in Visiport trocar system.

Complications of laparoscopic gynecologic surgery

Background and Objectives:

To analyze the frequency of complications during laparoscopic gynecologic surgery and identify associated risk factors.

Methods:

A descriptive observational study was performed between January 2000 and December 2012 and included all gynecologic laparoscopies performed at our center. Variables were recorded for patient characteristics, indication for surgery, length of hospital stay (in days), major and minor complications, and conversions to laparotomy. To identify risk factors and variables associated with complications, crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated with unconditional logistic regression.

Results:

Of all 2888 laparoscopies included, most were procedures of moderate difficulty (adnexal surgery) (54.2%). The overall frequency of major complications was 1.93%, and that of minor complications was 4.29%. The level of technical difficulty and existence of prior abdominal surgery were associated with a higher risk of major complications and conversions to laparotomy.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic gynecologic surgery is associated with a low frequency of complications but is a procedure that is not without risk. Greater technical difficulty and prior surgery were factors associated with a higher frequency of complications.

Safer Surgery by Learning from Complications: A Focus on Robotic Prostate Surgery

BACKGROUND

The uptake of robotic surgery has led to changes in potential operative complications, as many surgeons learn minimally invasive surgery, and has allowed the documentation of such complications through the routine collection of intraoperative video.

OBJECTIVE

We documented intraoperative complications from robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with the aim of reporting the mechanisms, etiology, and necessary steps to avoid them. Our goal was to facilitate learning from these complications to improve patient care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Contributors delivered videos of complications that occurred during laparoscopic and robotic prostatectomy between 2010 and 2015.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

Surgical footage was available for a variety of complications during RARP.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Based on these videos, a literature search was performed using relevant terms (prostatectomy, robotic, complications), and the intraoperative steps of the procedures and methods of preventing complications were outlined.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

As a major surgical procedure, RARP has much potential for intra- and postoperative complications related to patient positioning, access, and the procedure itself. However, with a dedicated approach, increasing experience, a low index of suspicion, and strict adherence to safety measures, we suggest that the majority of such complications are preventable.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the complexity of the procedure, RARP is safe and reproducible for the surgical management of prostate cancer. Insight from experienced surgeons may allow surgeons to avoid complications during the learning curve.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has potential for intra- and postoperative complications, but with a dedicated approach, increasing experience, a low index of suspicion, and strict adherence to safety measures, most complications are preventable.

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.

Avoiding and managing vascular injury during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

There has been an increase in the number of urologic procedures performed robotically assisted; this is the case for radical prostatectomy. Currently, in the USA, 67% of prostatectomies are performed robotically assisted. With this increase in robotic urologic surgery it is clear that there are more surgeons in their learning curve, where most of the complications occur. Among the complications that can occur are vascular injuries. These can occur in the initial stages of surgery, such as in accessing the abdominal cavity, as well as in the intraoperative or postoperative setting. We present the most common vascular injuries in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, as well as their management and prevention. We believe that it is of vital importance to be able to recognize these injuries so that they can be prevented.

The safety of direct trocar versus Veress needle for laparoscopic entry: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the safety of direct trocar insertion (DTI) versus Veress needle followed by primary trocar insertion (VN).

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE(®), Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the reference lists of published articles were searched up to September 2011 to identify randomized clinical trials comparing DTI with VN. This meta-analysis was restricted to randomized studies comparing the safety of these two laparoscopic entry techniques.

RESULTS

Seven randomized studies consisting of 2940 women (VN, n=1525; DTI, n=1415) were identified. The data on the safety of two entry techniques were abstracted, integrated, and analyzed with the meta-analysis method and are presented as pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). There were 4 cases of a major complication in the VN group in contrast to none in the DTI group. Pooled results failed to show a statistically significant difference in the risk of major complications between the two groups. A significantly higher risk of minor complications was detected in the VN group (RR [95% CI]=10.78 [6.27-18.51]). Among minor complications, preperitoneal injuries (46.73 [11.55-189.10]) and omental injuries (4.51 [2.12-9.62]) were the two most common complications in the VN group. There were significantly increased risks of multiple insertions (more than two attempts) (2.99 [2.11-4.23]) and failed entry (2.21[1.07-4.56]) in the VN group.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that the commonly used VN entry technique carries a significantly increased risk of minor complications. In addition, the likelihood of multiple insertions and failed entry are significantly higher in the VN group.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in gynaecology. Complications associated with laparoscopy are often related to entry. Life-threatening complications include injury to the bowel, bladder, major abdominal vessels, and an anterior abdominal-wall vessel. Other less serious complications can also occur, such as post-operative infection, subcutaneous emphysema and extraperitoneal insufflation. There is no clear consensus as to the optimal method of entry into the peritoneal cavity. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

This 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 February 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included when one laparoscopic entry technique was compared with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by the first three authors. Differences of opinion were registered and resolved by the fourth author. Results for each study were expressed as odds ratio (Peto OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 28 randomised controlled trials with 4860 individuals undergoing laparoscopy and evaluated 14 comparisons. Overall there was no evidence of advantage using any single technique in terms of preventing major vascular or visceral complications. Using an open-entry technique compared to a Veress Needle demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of failed entry, Peto OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.92). There were three advantages with direct-trocar entry when compared with Veress Needle entry, in terms of lower rates of failed entry (Peto OR 0.21, 95% Cl 0.14 to 0.31), extraperitoneal insufflation (Peto OR 0.18, 95% Cl 0.13 to 0.26), and omental injury (Peto OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.55).There was also an advantage with radially expanding access system (STEP) trocar entry when compared with standard trocar entry, in terms of trocar site bleeding (Peto OR 0.31, 95% Cl 0.15 to 0.62). Finally, there was an advantage of not lifting the abdominal wall before Veress Needle insertion when compared to lifting in terms of failed entry, without an increase in the complication rate (Peto OR 4.44, 95% CI 2.16 to 9.13). However, studies were limited to small numbers, excluding many patients with previous abdominal surgery and women with a raised body mass index who may have unusually high complication rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

An open-entry technique is associated with a significant reduction in failed entry when compared to a closed-entry technique, with no difference in the incidence of visceral or vascular injury.Significant benefits were noted with the use of a direct-entry technique when compared to the Veress Needle. The use of the Veress Needle was associated with an increased incidence of failed entry, extraperitoneal insufflation and omental injury; direct-trocar entry is therefore a safer closed-entry technique.The low rate of reported complications associated with laparoscopic entry and the small number of participants within the included studies may account for the lack of significant difference in terms of major vascular and visceral injury between entry techniques. Results should be interpreted with caution for outcomes where only single studies were included.

Bleeding complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Incidence, mechanisms, prevention and management

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has established itself firmly as the 'gold standard' for the treatment of gallstone disease, but it can, at times, be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Existing literature has focused almost exclusively on the biliary complications of this procedure, but other complications such as significant haemorrhage can also be encountered, with an immediate mortality if not recognized and treated in a timely manner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Publications in English language literature that have reported the complication of bleeding during or after the performance of LC were identified and accessed. The results thus obtained were tabulated and analyzed to get a true picture of this complication, its mechanism and preventive measures.

RESULTS

Bleeding has been reported to occur with an incidence of up to nearly 10% in various series, and can occur at any time during LC (during trocar insertion, dissection technique or slippage of clips/ ligatures) or in the postoperative period. It can range from minor haematomas to life-threatening injuries to major intra-abdominal vessels (such as aorta, vena cava and iliacs).

CONCLUSION

Good surgical technique, awareness and early recognition and management of such cases are keys to success when dealing with this problem.

Risks associated with laparoscopic entry: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians

The aim of these recommendations of the French National College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians was to focus the surgeon's attention on those aspects which could allow him/her to prevent, or at least limit, the incidence of these serious complications, in the absence of a previous laparotomy or specific risk factors (obesity, gauntness, large pelvic mass or pregnancy), four widely evaluated techniques can be used in a first line approach (Grade B): blind trans-umbilical technique following creation of pneumoperitoneum with a needle, open laparoscopy (Hasson technique), left upper quadrant entry (pneumoperitoneum and insertion of the first trocar) and direct trans-umbilical trocar with no prior pneumoperitoneum. The currently existing trials do not allow one or another of these techniques to be preferred. Radially expanding insertion systems and optical trocars cannot be recommended as a first-line approach, as a consequence of their currently insufficient degree of evaluation (Grade C). Trans-umbilical (blind or open) laparoscopic entry in a slim woman must be associated with care, as a result of the proximity of the large vessels (Grade B). If a blind trans-umbilical insertion technique is decided upon, one option can be to insufflate into the left upper quadrant (professional consensus). In the case of a previous midline laparotomy, whatever the technique used, initial entry is recommended at a distance from the scars (Grade B). It is recommended to carry out micro-laparoscopy in the LUQ, because this is the most completely evaluated technique for this indication (Grade C). One option is to use open laparoscopy at a distance from the existing scars (professional consensus). During pregnancy, the insertion position of the first laparoscopic trocar will need to be adapted according to the volume of the uterus (Grade B). Starting from 14WG, trans-umbilical Veress needle insufflation is contraindicated (Grade C). Two trocar insertion techniques are thus recommended: open laparoscopy (using the trans-umbilical or supra-umbilical routes, depending on the volume of the uterus) or micro-laparoscopy via the left upper quadrant (Grade C). After the second quarter of pregnancy, with laparoscopy the patient will need to be placed on a table inclined towards her left side, in order to minimize compression of the inferior vena cava (Grade B). In the case of laparoscopy during pregnancy, the insufflation pressure must be maintained at a maximum of 12mmHg (Grade B). After 24WG, if laparoscopy is performed, it is recommended to apply open laparoscopy, above the level of the umbilicus (professional consensus). Patients must be informed of the risks inherent to the insertion of trocars during laparoscopy (vascular, bowel or bladder injury) (Grade B). The more benign the pathology requiring an operation, the more detailed the supplied information must be, including that concerning rare but serious complications (Grade B).

INTRA-ABDOMINAL VASCULAR INJURY DURING TROCAR-ASSISTED VENTRICULOPERITONEAL SHUNTING

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic trocar injury is a relatively well-described complication of cholecystectomies and gynecological procedures. However, this type of injury has not been reported in association with adult neurological surgery. To increase awareness of this very serious risk, we report a case of intra-abdominal vascular injury during a shunt procedure involved with a common neurosurgical procedure.

CLINICAL PRESENTATION

A 76-year-old man with no previous abdominal surgical history presented with probable normal pressure hydrocephalus.

INTERVENTION

After an appropriate preoperative workup confirming probable normal pressure hydrocephalus, the patient consented to placement of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt with a programmable valve. During placement of the distal catheter using an abdominal trocar, the aorta was punctured inadvertently, necessitating emergency laparotomy for vascular repair.

CONCLUSION

An abdominal trocar should be used with caution in ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery. Even with meticulous technique, vascular injury can occur with any trocar-based abdominal procedure. The neurosurgeon who uses this technique must be prepared to initiate emergent vascular access and repair, with a vascular surgery team available should such an injury occur. Alternatively, open placement of peritoneal catheters avoids blind peritoneal instrumentation and is an effective method for minimizing potentially catastrophic vascular injuries.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a very common procedure in gynaecology. Complications associated with laparoscopy are often related to entry. The life-threatening complications include injury to the bowel, bladder, major abdominal vessels, and anterior abdominal-wall vessel. Other less serious complications can also occur, such as post-operative infection, subcutaneous emphysema and extraperitoneal insufflation. There is no clear consensus as to the optimal method of entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the different laparoscopic entry techniques in terms of their influence on intra-operative and post-operative complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. In addition MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through to July, 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included when one laparoscopic primary-port-entry technique was compared with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by the first two authors. Differences of opinion were registered and resolved by the fourth author. Results for each study were expressed as odds ratio (Peto version) with their 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

The 17 included randomised controlled trials concerned 3,040 individuals undergoing laparoscopy. Overall there was no evidence of advantage using any single technique in terms of preventing major complications. However, there were two advantages with direct-trocar entry when compared with Veress-Needle entry, in terms of avoiding extraperitoneal insufflation (OR 0.06, 95%CI 0.02, 0.23) and failed entry (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.08, 0.56). There was also an advantage with radially expanding access system (STEP) trocar entry when compared with standard trocar entry, in terms of trocar site bleeding (OR 0.06, 95%CI 0.01, 0.46). Finally, there was an advantage of not lifting the abdominal wall before Veress-Needle insertion when compared to lifting in terms of failed entry without an increase in the complication rate (OR 5.17, 95%CI 2.24, 11.90). However, studies were limited to small numbers, excluding many patients with previous abdominal surgery and women with a raised body mass index, who often had unusually high complication rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of evidence investigated in this review, there appears to be no evidence of benefit in terms of safety of one technique over another. However, the included studies are small and cannot be used to confirm safety of any particular technique.