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

The effects of previous abdominal surgery and the utilisation of modified access techniques on the operative difficulty and outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Early reports suggested that previous abdominal surgery was a relative contraindication to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) on account of difficulty and potential access complications. This study analyses different types/systems of previous surgery and locations of scars and how they affect access difficulties. As modified access techniques to minimise risk of complications are under-reported the study details and evaluates them.

METHOD

Prospectively collected data from consecutive LC and common bile duct explorations (LCBDE) performed by a single surgeon over 30 years was analysed. Previous abdominal surgery was documented and peri-operative outcomes were compared with patients who had no previous surgery using Chi-squared analysis.

RESULTS

Of 5916 LC and LCBDE, 1846 patients (31.2%) had previous abdominal surgery. The median age was 60 years. Those with previous surgery required more frequent duodenal (RR 1.07; p = 0.023), hepatic flexure (RR 1.11; p = 0.043) and distal adhesiolysis (RR 3.57; p < 0.001) and had more access related bowel injuries (0.4% vs. 0.0%; p < 0.001). Previous upper gastrointestinal and biliary surgery had the highest rates of adhesiolysis (76.3%), difficult cystic pedicles (58.8%), fundus-first approach (7.2%), difficulty grades (64.9% Grades 3-5) and utilisation of abdominal drains (71.1%). Previous open surgery resulted in longer operative time compared to previous laparoscopic procedures (65vs.55 min; p < 0.001), increased difficulty of pedicle dissection (42.4% vs. 36.0%; p < 0.05) and required more duodenal, hepatic flexure and distant adhesiolysis (p < 0.05) and fundus-first dissection (4% vs 2%; p < 0.05). Epigastric and supraumbilical access and access through umbilical and other hernias were used in 163 patients (8.8%) with no bowel complications.

CONCLUSION

The risks of access and adhesiolysis in patients with previous abdominal scars undergoing biliary surgery are dependent on the nature of previous surgery. Previous open, upper gastrointestinal and biliary surgery carried the most significant risks. Modified access techniques can be adopted to safely mitigate these risks.

Avoidance of bile duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy with feasible intraoperative resources: A cohort study

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most commonly performed surgeries and is considered the standard treatment for cholelithiasis. However, it is associated with a risk of bile duct or hepatic artery injuries. This study evaluated the safety of LCs and the conversion rate (CR) by achieving a critical view of safety (CVS) and identification of Rouviere's sulcus (RS). This was a single-group cohort study that included consecutive patients undergoing LC at Smart Health Tower (Sulaimani, Iraq) from January 2021 to January 2023. The data were prospectively collected from patients' profiles or surgical notes within the hospital's database. A total of 419 patients underwent LC, of which females were the predominant gender (78.5%). The mean and median ages of the cases were 46.3±15.8 and 45 years, with a range of 2-90 years, respectively. The most common indications for surgery were biliary colic (69.5%), followed by acute cholecystitis (23.9%). The duration of the operations was significantly shorter for cases in which the CVS (45.6±17.9 min) or identification of RS (45.6±18.6 min) was achieved compared to those where the CVS (63.7±27.7 min) or RS (50.7±21.7 min) was not observed. Surgeries for patients with both CVS achievement and RS identification were also significantly less time-consuming (44.3±17.6) than counterparts (53.3±22.6). Among the cases without CVS achievement or RS identification (n=97, 23%), eight (8.2%) had adhesions, 12 (12.4%) had a distended gallbladder (GB) and 10 (10.3%) had thick GB walls. In addition, four (4.1%) experienced GB perforation, two (2.1%) had bleeding and one (1%) had stone spillage. There was no conversion. The achievement of CVS and identification of RS are practical landmarks in performing safe LC and decreasing the CR.

Primary entry trocar design and entry-related complications at laparoscopy in obese patients: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Safe primary entry at laparoscopy could present challenges in obese patients. Various techniques have been proposed in previous studies, however, the characteristics of the actual device utilized may be more influential than the technique in achieving successful abdominal entry in patients with increased BMI.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis included both randomized and non-randomized studies gathered with no date filters from MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Clinicaltrials.gov. PRISMA guidelines underpinned the conduct and reporting of the review. The meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using a generalized linear mixed model and analyses included random-effects models. The primary outcome was the proportion of first access vascular and visceral injuries incurred in the process of laparoscopic abdominal surgery in patients with a BMI >30 kg/m2. Subgroup analysis was performed for optical versus non-optically enabled devices.

RESULTS

In total, 5403 patients were analysed across 13 observational studies with a mean BMI of 45.93 kg/m2. In 216 patients from two randomized studies, the mean BMI was 39.92 kg/m2. The overall incidence using a random-effects model was 8.1 per 1000 events of visceral and vascular injuries (95 per cent c.i. 0.003 to 0.024). Heterogeneity was statistically significant at I2 = 80.5 per cent (69.6 per cent; 87.5 per cent, P< 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, a tendency towards reduced injuries when optical devices were employed was observed with one per 100 injuries in these trocars (95 per cent c.i. 0.001 to 0.018) versus four per 100 (95 per cent c.i. -0.019 to -0.102) in non-optically enabled devices.

CONCLUSION

Injuries during primary laparoscopic entry undertaken in obese patient groups are uncommon. Due to considerable heterogeneity in the small number of examined studies, evidence was insufficient and largely of low quality to ascribe differences in the incidence of injuries to the characteristics of the primary entry trocar utilized.

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.

Cost-effective minimally invasive gynecologic surgery: emphasizing surgical efficiency

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The United States has the highest healthcare costs among developed countries. This review evaluates surgical practices and equipment choices during endoscopic hysterectomy, highlighting opportunities for the gynecologic surgeon to reduce costs and maximize surgical efficiency.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are opportunities to economize at every step of the endoscopic hysterectomy. When surgeons are provided education about instrumentation costs, the cost of hysterectomy has been shown to decrease. Colpotomy has been found to be the rate-limiting step in laparoscopic hysterectomy; use of a uterine manipulator likely saves time and money. When evaluating the economic impact of route of surgery, the cost differential between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomy has decreased. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy may be more cost-effective in some cases, such as for larger uteri. From a systems-level perspective, dedicating a specific operating room team to the gynecology service can decrease operative time.

SUMMARY

The gynecologic surgeon is best equipped to control surgery-related costs by making choices that improve surgical efficiency and decrease operating room time. If a costlier piece of equipment leads to a more efficient case, the choice may be more cost-effective. There are multiple systems-level changes that can be implemented to decrease surgery-related costs.