Randomized comparison of conventional carbon dioxide insufflation and abdominal wall lifting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Cost-effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy as a means to increase provision of minimally invasive surgery for abdominal conditions in rural North-East India

Laparoscopic surgery, a minimally invasive technique to treat abdominal conditions, has been shown to produce equivalent safety and efficacy with quicker return to normal function compared to open surgery. As such, it is widely accepted as a cost-effective alternative to open surgery for many abdominal conditions. However, access to laparoscopic surgery in rural North-East India is limited, in part due to limited equipment, unreliable supplies of CO₂ gas, lack of surgical expertise and a shortage of anaesthetists. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy as a means to increase provision of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for abdominal conditions in rural North-East India. A decision tree model was developed to compare costs, evaluated from a patient perspective, and health outcomes, disability adjusted life years (DALYs), associated with gasless laparoscopy, conventional laparoscopy or open abdominal surgery in rural North-East India. Results indicate that MIS (performed by conventional or gasless laparoscopy) is less costly and produces better outcomes, fewer DALYs, than open surgery. These results were consistent even when gasless laparoscopy was analysed using least favourable data from the literature. Scaling up provision of MIS through increased access to gasless laparoscopy would reduce the cost burden to patients and increase DALYs averted. Based on a sample of 12 facilities in the North-East region, if scale up was achieved so that all essential surgeries amenable to laparoscopic surgery were performed as such (using conventional or gasless laparoscopy), 64% of DALYS related to these surgeries could be averted, equating to an additional 454.8 DALYs averted in these facilities alone. The results indicate that gasless laparoscopy is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to open surgery for abdominal conditions in rural North-East India and provides a possible bridge to the adoption of full laparoscopic services.

Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is challenging to adopt and implement in low resource settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy with CO2 pneumoperitoneum and open surgery for general surgery and gynaecological procedures.

METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, AJOL databases and Cochrane Library was performed from inception to January 2021. All randomised (RCTs) and comparative cohort (non-RCTs) studies comparing gasless laparoscopy with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy were included. The primary outcomes were mortality, conversion rates and intraoperative complications.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

operative times and length of stay. The inverse variance random-effects model was used to synthesise data.

RESULTS

63 studies were included: 41 RCTs and 22 non-RCTs (3,620 patients). No procedure-related deaths were reported in the studies. For gasless vs conventional laparoscopy there was no difference in intraoperative complications for general RR 1.04 [CI 0.45-2.40] or gynaecological surgery RR 0.66 [0.14-3.13]. In the gasless laparoscopy group, the conversion rates for gynaecological surgery were high RR 11.72 [CI 2.26-60.87] when compared to conventional laparoscopy. For gasless vs open surgery, the operative times were longer for gasless surgery in general surgery RCT group MD (mean difference) 10 [CI 0.64, 19.36], but significantly shorter in the gynaecology RCT group MD - 18.74 [CI - 29.23, - 8.26]. For gasless laparoscopy vs open surgery non-RCT, the length of stay was shorter for gasless laparoscopy in general surgery MD - 3.94 [CI - 5.93, - 1.95] and gynaecology MD - 1.75 [CI - 2.64, - 0.86]. Overall GRADE assessment for RCTs and Non-RCTs was very low.

CONCLUSION

Gasless laparoscopy has advantages for selective general and gynaecological procedures and may have a vital role to play in low resource settings.

KeyLoop: Mechanical Retraction of the Abdominal Wall for Gasless Laparoscopy

Background. Despite favorable outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in high-income countries, its implementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is challenging given a shortage of consumable supplies, high cost, and risk of power outages. To overcome these barriers, we designed a mechanical retractor that provides vertical tension on the anterior abdominal wall. Methods. The retractor design is anatomically and mathematically optimized to provide exposure similar to traditional gas-based insufflation methods. Anatomical data from computed tomography scans were used to define retractor size. The retractor is constructed of biocompatible stainless steel rods and paired with a table-mounted lifting system to provide 5 degrees of freedom. Structural integrity was assessed through finite element analysis (FEA) and load testing. Functional testing was performed in a laparotomy model. Results. A user guide based on patient height and weight was created to customize retractor size, and 4 retractor sizes were constructed. FEA data using a 13.6 kg mass (15 mm Hg pneumoperitoneum) show a maximum of 30 mm displacement with no permanent deformation. Physical load testing with applied weight from 0 to 13.6 kg shows a maximum of 60 mm displacement, again without permanent deformation. Retraction achieved a 57% larger field of view compared to an unretracted state in a laparotomy model. Conclusions. The KeyLoop retractor maintains structural integrity, is easily sterilized, and can be readily manufactured, making it a viable alternative to traditional insufflation methods. For surgeons and patients in LMICs, the KeyLoop provides a means to increase access to laparoscopic surgery.

Abdominal lift for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (key-hole removal of the gallbladder) is now the most often used method for treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Several cardiopulmonary changes (decreased cardiac output, pulmonary compliance, and increased peak airway pressure) occur during pneumoperitoneum, which is now introduced to allow laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These cardiopulmonary changes may not be tolerated in individuals with poor cardiopulmonary reserve.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of abdominal wall lift compared to pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing abdominal wall lift (with or without pneumoperitoneum) versus pneumoperitoneum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using the Review Manager (RevMan) software.

MAIN RESULTS

For abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum versus pneumoperitoneum, a total of 130 participants (all with low anaesthetic risk) scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in five trials to abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum (n = 53) versus pneumoperitoneum only (n = 52). One trial which included 25 people did not state the number of participants in each group. All five trials had a high risk of bias. There was no mortality or conversion to open cholecystectomy in any of the participants in the trials that reported these outcomes. There was no significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups (two trials; 2/29 events (0.069 events per person) versus 2/29 events (0.069 events per person); rate ratio 1.00; 95% CI 0.17 to 5.77). None of the trials reported quality of life, the proportion of people discharged as day-patient laparoscopic cholecystectomies, or pain between four and eight hours after the operation. There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups (four trials; 53 participants versus 54 participants; 13.39 minutes longer (95% CI 2.73 less to 29.51 minutes longer) in the abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum group and 100 minutes in the pneumoperitoneum group).For abdominal wall lift versus pneumoperitoneum, a total of 774 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in 18 trials to abdominal wall lift without pneumoperitoneum (n = 332) versus pneumoperitoneum (n = 358). One trial which included 84 people did not state the number in each group. All the trials had a high risk of bias. There was no mortality in any of the trials that reported this outcome. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (six trials; 5/172 (weighted proportion 2.4%) versus 2/171 (1.2%); RR 2.01; 95% CI 0.52 to 7.80). There was no significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups (three trials; 5/99 events (weighted number of events per person = 0.346 events) versus 2/99 events (0.020 events per person); rate ratio 1.73; 95% CI 0.35 to 8.61). None of the trials reported quality of life or pain between four and eight hours after the operation. There was no significant difference in the proportion of people who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy (11 trials; 5/225 (weighted proportion 2.3%) versus 7/235 (3.0%); RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.21). The operating time was significantly longer in the abdominal wall lift group than in the pneumoperitoneum group (16 trials; 6.87 minutes longer (95% CI 4.74 minutes to 9.00 minutes longer) in the abdominal wall lift group versus 75 minutes in the pneumoperitoneum group). There was no significant difference in the proportion of people discharged as laparoscopic cholecystectomy day-patients (two trials; 15/31 (weighted proportion 48.5%) versus 9/31 (29%); RR 1.67; 95% CI 0.85 to 3.26).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal wall lift with or without pneumoperitoneum does not seem to offer an advantage over pneumoperitoneum in any of the patient-oriented outcomes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in people with low anaesthetic risk. Hence it cannot be recommended routinely. The safety of abdominal wall lift is yet to be established. More research on the topic is needed because of the risk of bias in the included trials and because of the risk of type I and type II random errors due to the few participants included in the trials. Future trials should include people at higher anaesthetic risk. Furthermore, such trials should include blinded assessment of outcomes.

Intestinal ischemia following laparoscopic surgery: a case series

Introduction

Intestinal ischemia is a rare complication of laparoscopic surgery. Its prognosis depends on a high index of suspicion and effective early treatment.

Case presentation

In the present report, we describe three cases where intestinal ischemia developed following laparoscopic surgery. Case 1 concerns a 52-year-old Caucasian man who developed large bowel ischemia following laparoscopic adjustable gastric band surgery. Case 2 concerns an 82-year-old Caucasian woman who developed fatal intestinal ischemia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Case 3 concerns a 58-year old Caucasian woman who developed right-sided lower intestinal ischemia following open cholecystectomy.

Conclusions

Intestinal ischemia is a rare complication of laparoscopic surgery. The identification of high-risk patients is an essential primary preventive measure. A high index of suspicion is required to make an early diagnosis, which may help improve outcomes.

Abdominal lift for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (key-hole removal of the gallbladder) is now the most often used method for treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Several cardiopulmonary changes (decreased cardiac output, pulmonary compliance, and increased peak airway pressure) occur during pneumoperitoneum, which is now introduced to allow laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These cardiopulmonary changes may not be tolerated in individuals with poor cardiopulmonary reserve.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of abdominal wall lift compared with pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing abdominal wall lift (with or without pneumoperitoneum) versus pneumoperitoneum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan software.

MAIN RESULTS

For abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum versus pneumoperitoneum, a total of 156 participants (all with low anaesthetic risk) who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in six trials to abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum (n = 65) versus pneumoperitoneum only (n = 66). One trial which included 25 patients did not state the number of patients in each group. All six trials had a high risk of bias. There was no mortality or conversion to open cholecystectomy in any of the patients in the trials that reported these outcomes. There was no significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups (2 trials; 2/29 events (0.069 events per patient) versus 2/29 events (0.069 events per patient); rate ratio 1.00; 95% CI 0.17 to 5.77). None of the trials reported quality of life, the proportion of patients discharged as day-patient laparoscopic cholecystectomies, or pain between four and eight hours after the operation. There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups (4 trials; 53 patients versus 54 patients; 13.39 minutes longer (2.73 less to 29.51 longer) in the abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum group and 100 minutes in the pneumoperitoneum group).For abdominal wall lift versus pneumoperitoneum, a total of 774 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in 18 trials to abdominal wall lift without pneumoperitoneum (n = 332) versus pneumoperitoneum (n = 358). One trial which included 84 patients did not state the number of patients in each group. All the trials had a high risk of bias. There was no mortality in any of the trials that reported this outcome. There was no significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups (6 trials; 5/172 events (weighted number of events per patient = 0.020 events) versus 2/171 events (0.012 events per patient); rate ratio 1.73; 95% CI 0.35 to 8.61). None of the trials reported quality of life or pain between four and eight hours after the operation. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy (11 trials; 5/225 (weighted proportion 2.3%) versus 7/235 (3.0%); RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.21). The operating time was significantly longer in the abdominal wall lift group than the pneumoperitoneum group (16 trials; 6.87 minutes longer (4.74 to 9.00 longer) in the abdominal wall lift group; 75 minutes in the pneumoperitoneum group). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who were discharged as day-patient laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients (2 trials; 15/31 (weighted proportion 48.5%) versus 9/31 (29%); RR 1.67; 95% CI 0.85 to 3.26).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal wall lift does not seem to offer an advantage over pneumoperitoneum in any of the patient-oriented outcomes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with low anaesthetic risk. It may increase costs by increasing the operating time. Hence it cannot be recommended routinely. The safety of abdominal wall lift is yet to be established. More research on the topic is needed because of the risk of bias in the included trials and because of the risk of type I and type II random errors because of the few patients included in the trials. Such trials ought to include patients at higher anaesthetic risk. Furthermore, such trials ought to include blinded assessment of outcome measures.

2010 Trauma Association of Canada presidential address: why the Trauma Association of Canada should care about space medicine

The Trauma Association of Canada is now 27 years old, having been officially founded in 1983, at the meetings of the Royal College as a maturation of the trauma committee of the Canadian Association of General Surgeons. The first page of the official minutes also stressed the need to welcome other disciplines into the fold. Personally, it has taken me years of involvement, as well as the Presidency, to truly appreciate the depth of our Founding Members commitment. These individuals set lofty mission goals for the organization, namely: to strive to improve the quality of care provided to the injured patient, including prehospital management and transport, acute care hospitalization, and reintegration into society; to support, conduct, and apply basic science and clinical and outcome research related to trauma; to encourage effective and efficient use of healthcare resources in the delivery of trauma care; and to foster professional and community education in the field of injury prevention and in the care of the injured patient. As daunting as these responsibilities are, I am suggesting one more: to overcome the great penalty of geography that challenges our nation and penalizes many of our citizens by aspiring to optimize these four goals, for all Canadians, irrespective of where they live--our potential fifth mission. Furthermore, I believe that lessons from space medicine may offer some strategies to accomplish this goal.

Abdominal lift for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Several cardiopulmonary changes (decreased cardiac output, pulmonary compliance, and increased peak airway pressure) occur during pneumoperitoneum. These changes may not be tolerated in individuals with poor cardiopulmonary reserve.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of abdominal wall lift compared to pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation IndexExpanded until January 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing abdominal wall lift (with or without pneumoperitoneum) and pneumoperitoneum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum versus pneumoperitoneum. A total of 156 participants (all with low anaesthetic risk) who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in six trials to abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum (n = 65) versus pneumoperitoneum only (n = 66). One trial which included 25 patients did not state the number of patients in each group. All six trials were of high risk of bias. The cardiopulmonary changes were less in abdominal wall lift than pneumoperitoneum. There was no difference in the morbidity and pain between the groups. Abdominal wall lift versus pneumoperitoneum. A total of 550 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in fourteen trials to abdominal wall lift without pneumoperitoneum (n = 268) versus pneumoperitoneum (n = 282). Two of these fourteen trials were of low risk of bias. The cardiopulmonary changes were less in abdominal wall lift than with pneumoperitoneum. There was no difference in the morbidity and pain between the groups. The operating time was prolonged in abdominal wall lift compared with pneumoperitoneum (WMD 7.74, 95% CI 1.37 to 14.12).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

(1) Abdominal wall lift seems safe and decreases the cardiopulmonary changes associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy.(2) Abdominal wall lift does not seem to offer advantage over pneumoperitoneum in any of the patient-oriented outcomes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with low anaesthetic risk and may increase costs by increasing the operating time. Hence it cannot be recommended routinely. More research on the topic is needed.

Randomized trial of low-pressure carbon dioxide-elicited pneumoperitoneum versus abdominal wall lifting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Two alternative surgical techniques for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), low-pressure insufflation of the peritoneal cavity and abdominal wall lifting (AWL), have been developed over time to minimize the disadvantages associated with CO2-elicited pneumoperitoneum. To the best of our knowledge, the 2 methods have seldom been compared as regards their relative advantages and disadvantages.

METHODS

Eighty patients scheduled for elective LC were randomized into either a low-pressure (8 mmHg) CO2 insufflation method (LPLC) group, or a gasless technique using a subcutaneous abdominal wall lifting device (GLC group). The duration of the surgical procedure, the surgical results including level of postoperative pain, and perioperative cardiopulmonary function changes experienced by the members of both groups were compared.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic surgery was completed for all but 1 patient from each group due to an inadequate surgical-site exposure. There was no mortality for study participants, and no major complications were noted for members of either group. The LPLC group evidenced a shorter surgical duration as compared to the GLC group (77 +/- 28 minutes vs. 98 +/- 27 minutes, respectively; p < 0.01) and a lower incidence of postoperative shoulder pain (2/38 vs. 8/39, respectively; p < 0.05), although significant differences in intraoperative pulmonary function were noted (an increased PaCO2, Pet CO2 and peak-airway pressure and decreased arterial blood pH; p < 0.01) for the LPLC group compared to the GLC group.

CONCLUSION

Both alternative methods for this type of surgery appeared feasible and safe for LC. Low-pressure CO2 pneumoperitoneum had a shorter surgical duration and less postoperative shoulder pain compared to the GLC technique, but did not feature any other advantage over the AWL technique with regard to impact on cardiopulmonary function.

A pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide insufflation during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection with the patient under conscious sedation

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is accepted as one of the treatments for en bloc resection of large superficial colorectal lesions. This procedure is performed by using air insufflation, is time consuming, and is associated with severe abdominal discomfort. The safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation during colonoscopy already has been assessed in some trials.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of CO(2) insufflation instead of air insufflation during colorectal ESD with the patient under conscious sedation.

DESIGN

A case-control series with a historical control.

PATIENTS

A total of 35 consecutive patients were enrolled in this study. Another 35 consecutive patients who previously received colorectal ESDs by using air insufflation were included as a historical control.

INTERVENTIONS

Arterial partial pressure of CO(2) (pCO(2)) was measured before and after each procedure with the total dose of midazolam used as an index of abdominal discomfort.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The mean (standard deviation [SD]) operation time was 90 +/- 57 minutes in the CO(2) group and 100 +/- 80 minutes in the control group (not significant). In the CO(2) group, the mean (SD) dose of midazolam was significantly lower than that of the control group; 5.6 +/- 4.9 mg and 9.7 +/- 5.9 mg, respectively (P = .005). Blood analysis revealed a slight pCO(2) elevation in the CO(2) group; however, only 2 patients complained of mild abdominal discomfort.

LIMITATIONS

Abdominal discomfort and pCO(2) were not evaluated in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study strongly suggests that CO(2) insufflation is safe and effective during lengthy colonic endoscopic procedures, eg, ESD, with the patient under conscious sedation.

The effect of NG-nitro L-arginine methyl ester on colonic anastomosis after increased intra-abdominal pressure

BACKGROUND

Intestinal ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) is associated with augmented nitric oxide (NO) production. Increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) during surgical pneumoperitoneum (P) facilitates I/R injury. We previously demonstrated decreased strength and healing of colocolic anastomoses after high IAPs. The effect of an NO synthase inhibitor, N (G)-nitro-arginine methyl ester (L: -NAME), on anastomoses realized in colonic tissue exposed to high IAPs was investigated in this study, a randomized, controlled, and experimental study with blind outcome assessment.

METHOD

Fifty Wistar-albino rats were randomized to five groups; all underwent colocolic anastomosis. P was maintained for 60 min at IAPs of 14, 20, 25, and 30 mmHg in study groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively; P was preceded by intraperitoneal L: -NAME (2.5 mg/kg) and followed by anastomosis. The control group was not subjected to IAP or L: -NAME.

RESULTS

Anastomosis bursting pressure (ABP) values and histopathological findings were determined on the 7th-14th postoperative days. The ABPs of groups 3-4 were significantly lower than the others. Groups 1-2 had results similar to controls. Histopathological findings of the groups were consistent with their ABPs.

CONCLUSION

Administration of a 2.5-mg/kg intraperitoneal L: -NAME dose was found to provide a beneficial role, implying a role in impaired anastomotic healing after IAPs of 14 and 20 mmHg.

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for suspected renal cell carcinoma in dialysis-dependent patients

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the treatment and outcomes of laparoscopic nephrectomy for suspected renal cancer in patients with dialysis-dependent renal failure. Laparoscopic nephrectomy is currently an accepted modality in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma in many patients. However, the indications for the minimally invasive approach in patients with renal dysfunction are unclear. End-stage renal disease has multiple manifestations associated with increased operative morbidity that are potentially amplified during laparoscopy.

METHODS

We reviewed our single-center experience for performing laparoscopic nephrectomy in patients with renal failure. Of patients receiving dialysis and having a kidney removed laparoscopically, 7 underwent the operation for suspected renal carcinoma because of a solid mass on imaging. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative considerations were reviewed.

RESULTS

Of the 7 patients, 5 (71%) underwent successful removal of the kidney by laparoscopy. The amount of blood loss (120 mL) and the median time to discharge after surgery (3 days) were comparable to published data and our experience in patients with normal renal function; however, the operative time (mean 294 minutes) was longer. No recurrences had been detected at the last follow-up examination (median 21 months, range 18 to 51). Despite meticulous attention to perioperative and anesthetic considerations, two complications were observed-ileus and necrotizing fasciitis of the flank.

CONCLUSIONS

Pure laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal malignancy is feasible in patients with end-stage renal failure. However, this population is at increased risk of complications, despite maintaining the advantages of reduced blood loss and shorter hospitalization. The decision to proceed with laparoscopy and the selection of the specific surgical approach (transperitoneal or retroperitoneal) should be based on both surgeon experience and patient factors. In addition, careful preoperative preparation and intraoperative anesthetic management are crucial.

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.