Randomized double-masked comparison of radially expanding access device and conventional cutting tip trocar in laparoscopy

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.

Initial closed trocar entry for laparoscopic surgery: Technique, umbilical cosmesis, and patient satisfaction

Background/Aims:

Despite the benefits of laparoscopic surgery, which is being performed with increasing frequency, complications that do not occur during laparotomy are sometimes encountered. Such complications commonly occur during the initial trocar insertion, making this a procedural step of critical importance.

Methods:

In 2002, we experienced, upon initial trocar insertion, a serious major vascular injury (MVI) that led to hemorrhagic shock, and we thus modified the conventional closed entry method to an approach that we have found to be safe. We began developing the method by first measuring, in a patient undergoing laparoscopic cystectomy, the distance between the inner surface of the abdominal wall and the anterior spine when the abdominal wall was lifted manually for trocar insertion and when it was lifted by other methods, and we determined which method provided the greatest distance. We then devised a new approach, summarized as follows: The umbilical ring is elevated with Kocher forceps. The umbilicus is everted, and the base is incised longitudinally. This allows penetration of the abdominal wall at its thinnest point, and it shortens the distance to the abdominal cavity. A bladeless trocar (Step trocar) is used to allow insertion of the Veress needle. We began applying the new entry technique in July 2002, and by December 2014, we had applied it to 9676 patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecology surgery.

Results:

All entries were performed successfully, and no MVI occurred. The umbilical incision often resulted in an umbilical deformity, but in a questionnaire-based survey, patients generally reported satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome.

Conclusion:

A current new approach provides safe outcome with a minor cosmetic problem.

Blunt versus bladed trocars in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Trocar-associated visceral injuries are rare but potentially fatal complications of laparoscopic access. More commonly, abdominal wall bleeding occurs, which usually requires hemostatic measures and prolongs operative time. Blunt-tipped trocars have been postulated to carry a lower risk of abdominal wall bleeding and intra-abdominal injuries. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to comparatively evaluate the relative risks of abdominal wall bleeding, visceral injuries, and overall complications with the use of bladed and blunt-tipped laparoscopic trocars.

METHODS

The databases of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials were searched to identify randomized studies that compared trocar-associated complications with the use of blunt and bladed trocars. Primary outcome measure was the relative risk of abdominal wall trocar site bleeding, and secondary outcome measures included visceral injuries and overall complications. Outcome data were pooled and combined overall effect sizes were calculated using the fixed- or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eight eligible randomized trials were identified; they included 720 patients with a median Jadad score of 4. The incidence of abdominal wall bleeding for the blunt and the bladed trocar group was 3 and 9 %, respectively [odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.88]. Trocar-associated morbidity rate, excluding bleeding events of the abdominal wall, was documented at 0.2 and 0.7 % of the blunt and the bladed trocar arm, respectively (OR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.06-2.97). The overall trocar-associated morbidity rate was 3 % in the blunt trocar group and 10 % in the bladed trocar group (OR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.19-0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Reliable data support a lower relative risk of trocar site bleeding and overall complications with blunt laparoscopic cannulas than bladed trocars. Transition to blunt trocars for secondary cannulation of the abdominal wall is thus strongly recommended. Larger patient populations are required to estimate the relative risk of visceral injuries.

Malpractice claims and avoidance of complications in endoscopic surgery

Laparoscopy has become a valuable tool for the gynaecologist in the diagnosis and treatment of a variety of gynecological disorders. Its quicker recovery time and other advantages has benefitted countless women. Laparoscopic procedures, however, have their own associated risks and complications, and the surgeon must become thoroughly familiar with these. This awareness will help reduce patient morbidity and mortality, and potentially avoid the stress and burden of litigation, which has been increasing in recent years. Complications of gynaecologic laparoscopy include entry-related problems, and injuries to bowel, urinary tract, blood vessels, and nerves. Although some of these complications have been well described, some have emerged recently in relation to new technology and techniques. In this chapter, we discuss some of the complications of endoscopic surgery, including their incidence, prevention, and medico-legal implications, and provide a brief overview of their management.

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.

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).

A simple way to fix a trocar during pediatric laparoscopy

We introduce a simple method of fixing trocars to the abdominal wall in children. After the trocar is inserted into the abdominal wall, we place a 2/0 silk suture through the skin next to the trocar, then a sterile Nylon 6.6 plastic seal (Sumar Inc, Buenos Aires, Argentina) is wrapped around the trocar and the end of one of the sutures. Lastly, both suture ends are tied around the plastic seal. To further ease and speed the procedure, we recently introduced a plastic seal fastening device. This method is simple, fast, efficacious, and inexpensive and can be used with all trocar sizes.

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.

Conservative Treatment of a Huge Abdominal Wall Hematoma After Laparoscopic Appendectomy

We report a case of a 30-year-old male patient who presented with a huge abdominal wall hematoma 60 minutes after laparoscopic appendectomy. During surgery there had been no sign of abdominal wall bleeding. We found a lateral abdominal wall hematoma caused by rupture of the abdominal epigastric artery after trocar insertion. We conclude that trocar injury is a potentially preventable complication in laparoscopic surgery if certain precautions are taken. Abdominal wall hematoma secondary to injury of an epigastric vessel can be successfully treated with conservative management.

Avoiding complications of laparoscopic surgery

No matter how skilled the surgeon, the risk of complications always exists. Complications of laparoscopic surgery include anesthesia difficulties, positioning and nerve injuries, injuries due to insertion of needles and trocars, and intraoperative vascular, bowel, and urinary tract injuries. Injuries from electrosurgical equipment may also result. This article focuses on preventing such complications.

Laparoscopic access: complications, technologies, and techniques

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review laparoscopic access systems, insertion techniques, and the risks of complications associated with their use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Access devices usually comprised an external cannula and a removable sharp pyramidal trocar for penetration of the abdominal wall, and were nearly universally positioned following establishment of a pneumoperitoneum. However, it is apparent that such devices and techniques contribute to patient morbidity through visceral and vascular injury, as well as incision-related complications such as dehiscence and hernia. There exist alternative approaches to positioning insufflation needles and the initial cannula, which may reduce the incidence of vascular and visceral injury particularly in the face of previous abdominal surgery. Inserting the initial cannula after minilaparotomy is associated with a reduced risk of vascular injury, but visceral complications still occur. Some new access instruments may reduce the risk of some complications associated with 'blind entry', and although not all seem to be effective in this regard, a set of blunt-tipped devices now exist, which are surprisingly easy to position and may limit the risk of injury while significantly reducing the size of the myofascial defect in the abdominal wall. Port site metastasis is a relatively newly recognized complication of oncological surgery and is a concern, but further investigation is required to determine whether such metastasis is related to a change in clinical outcome.

SUMMARY

The incidence and spectrum of access-related complications is greater than previously perceived. Newer devices and modifications in technique may reduce the incidence of such adverse events.

Experience with optical trocar in performing laparoscopic procedures

We report on the results of laparoscopic procedures in 1187 patients with use of the OPTIVIEW Optical Surgical Obturator, a device that permits visually guided trocar entry without insufflation. Most of these procedures (78%) involved hiatal hernia repairs, and 51% of our patients had a history of previous abdominal procedures. Visualization and pneumoperitoneum were successfully achieved in all patients, including those who had previously undergone multiple upper-midline abdominal procedures. There were three trocar-related injuries and one late complication (0.3%), including two bowel injuries repaired at the time of initial surgery, a mesenteric injury repaired with a clip applier, and an incisional hernia that resulted from placement of the trocar at midline instead of paramedian. Results of this large series indicate that trocar-related complications associated with use of the OPTIVIEW trocar are rare.