Comparison Between Intraperitoneal CO2 Insufflation and Abdominal Wall Lift on QT Dispersion and Rate-corrected QT Dispersion During 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.

Safety of ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly

BACKGROUND

This study aims to retrospectively analyse the safety of ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ALC) and identify risk factors for delayed discharge after ALC in the elderly.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who were scheduled to undergo ALC were assigned to the elderly group (age ≥ 65 years) or the non-elderly group. The primary outcome was postoperative discharge within 24 h (D24). Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality, reasons for delayed discharge (psychosocial reasons (DP), complications (DC), drainage (DD) and conversion to open surgery (DCO)), intraoperative data and readmission within 30 days after discharge (readmission). Differences were statistically significant when P < 0.05.

RESULTS

There were 7657 patients assigned to the elderly group (n = 1143) or the non-elderly group (n = 6514). The differences between elderly patients and non-elderly patients in the operation time (51.0 (37.0-70.0) versus 50.0 (35.0-65.0) min), blood loss (10.0 (5.0-10.0) versus 5.0 (5.0-10.0) mL), D24 (75.5% versus 81.7%) and DD (7.8% versus 3.2%) were statistically significant (P < 0.05, respectively). The differences between elderly patients and non-elderly patients in DP (8.2% versus 6.7%), DC (7.8% versus 7.9%), DCO (0.7% versus 0.5%) and readmission (0.5% versus 0.4%) were not statistically significant (P > 0.05, respectively). Independent risk factors for delayed discharge after ALC in the elderly were male sex, octogenarian status, prolonged operation time, arrhythmia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, a previous operation in the upper abdomen, acute inflammation of gallbladder and a gallbladder wall thicker than 3 mm (P < 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSION

ALC in the elderly is feasible and safe.

Effects of long periods of pneumoperitoneum combined with the head-up position on heart rate-corrected QT interval during robotic gastrectomy: an observational study

Objective

Pneumoperitoneum and the head-up position reportedly stimulate the sympathetic nervous system, potentially increasing the risk of cardiac arrhythmia. We evaluated the effects of a long duration of pneumoperitoneum in the head-up position on the heart rate-corrected QT (QTc) interval during robotic gastrectomy.

Methods

This prospective observational study involved 28 patients undergoing robotic gastrectomy. The QTc interval was recorded at the following time points: before anaesthetic induction (baseline); 10 minutes after tracheal intubation; 1, 5, 30, 60, and 90 minutes after pneumoperitoneum induction in the head-up position; after pneumoperitoneum desufflation in the supine position; and at the end of surgery. The primary outcome was the QTc interval, which was measured 90 minutes after pneumoperitoneum combined with the head-up position.

Results

Compared with baseline, the QTc interval was significantly prolonged at 1 and 60 minutes after pneumoperitoneum, peaked at 90 minutes, and was sustained and notably prolonged until the end of surgery. However, no considerable haemodynamic changes developed.

Conclusion

A long period of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum application in a head-up position significantly prolonged the QTc interval during robotic gastrectomy. Therefore, diligent care and close monitoring are required for patients who are susceptible to developing ventricular arrhythmia.

Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02604979; Registration number NCT02604979

Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Heart Rate-Corrected QT and Tpeak-Tend Intervals During Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy With Steep Trendelenburg Position: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Controlled Study

Intraperitoneal insufflation of carbon dioxide may affect the sympathetic activity that leads to changes in ventricular repolarization. This in turn can result in changes of heart rate-corrected QT (QTc) interval and Tpeak-Tend (Tp-e) interval. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α2-receptor agonist and has potential antiarrhythmic properties. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study evaluated the effects of dexmedetomidine administration on QTc and Tp-e intervals during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with steep Trendelenburg position.Fifty patients scheduled for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy randomly received either a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine at a rate of 0.3 μg/kg/hour, from anesthetic induction until the end of the Trendelenburg position (dexmedetomidine group; n = 25), or the same volume of normal saline (control group; n = 25). Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and remifentanil. The primary and secondary goals were to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine on the QTc and Tp-e interval changes. Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, end-tidal CO2, and end-tidal sevoflurane concentrations were assessed as well.Forty-seven patients (94%) completed the study. Dexmedetomidine significantly attenuated QTc interval prolongation and reduced the Tp-e interval, even though the baseline values of the QTc and Tp-e intervals were similar between the 2 groups (PGroup × Time = 0.001 and 0.014, respectively). Twenty-two patients (96%) in the control group and 13 (54%) in the dexmedetomidine group had QTc interval prolongation of >20 ms from the baseline value during surgery (P = 0.001). The maximum QTc interval prolongation from the baseline value during surgery was 46 ± 21 ms in the control group and 24 ± 21 ms in the dexmedetomidine group (mean ± SD, P = 0.001). Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were comparable between the groups.Continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine at a rate of 0.3 μg/kg/hour significantly attenuated the QTc interval prolongation induced by CO2 pneumoperitoneum with steep Trendelenburg position. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine reduced the Tp-e interval. Thus, dexmedetomidine administration may be effective for patients who are susceptible to the development of ventricular arrhythmia during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Effects of low and standard intra-abdominal pressure on systemic inflammation and immune response in laparoscopic adrenalectomy: A prospective randomised study

BACKGROUND:

The advantages of laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) over open adrenalectomy are undeniable. Nevertheless, carbon dioxide (CO₂) pneumoperitoneum may have an unfavourable effect on the local immune response. The aim of this study was to compare changes in the systemic inflammation and immune response in the early post-operative (p.o.) period after LA performed with standard and low-pressure CO₂ pneumoperitoneum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

We studied, in a prospective randomised study, 51 patients consecutively with documented adrenal lesion who had undergone a LA: 26 using standard-pressure (12-14 mmHg) and 25 using low-pressure (6-8 mmHg) pneumoperitoneum. White blood cells (WBC), peripheral lymphocyte subpopulation, human leucocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR), neutrophil elastase, interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-1, and C-reactive protein (CRP) were investigated.

RESULTS:

Significantly higher concentrations of neutrophil elastase, IL-6 and IL-1 and CRP were detected p.o. in the standard-pressure group of patients in comparison with the low-pressure group (P < 0.05). A statistically significant change in HLA-DR expression was recorded p.o. at 24 h, as a reduction of this antigen expressed on the monocyte surface in patients from the standard group; no changes were noted in low-pressure group patients (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

This study demonstrated that reducing the pressure of the pneumoperitoneum to 6-8 mmHg during LA reduced p.o. inflammatory response and averted p.o. immunosuppression.

Low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

A pneumoperitoneum of 12 to 16 mm Hg is used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lower pressures are claimed to be safe and effective in decreasing cardiopulmonary complications and pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of low pressure pneumoperitoneum compared with standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify randomised trials,using search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 based on available case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1092 participants randomly assigned to the low pressure group (509 participants) and the standard pressure group (583 participants) in 21 trials provided information for this review on one or more outcomes. Three additional trials comparing low pressure pneumoperitoneum with standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (including 179 participants) provided no information for this review. Most of the trials included low anaesthetic risk participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. One trial including 140 participants was at low risk of bias. The remaining 20 trials were at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. No mortality was reported in either the low pressure group (0/199; 0%) or the standard pressure group (0/235; 0%) in eight trials that reported mortality. One participant experienced the outcome of serious adverse events (low pressure group 1/179, 0.6%; standard pressure group 0/215, 0%; seven trials; 394 participants; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.14 to 65.90; very low quality evidence). Quality of life, return to normal activity, and return to work were not reported in any of the trials. The difference between groups in the conversion to open cholecystectomy was imprecise (low pressure group 2/269, adjusted proportion 0.8%; standard pressure group 2/287, 0.7%; 10 trials; 556 participants; RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.29 to 4.72; very low quality evidence) and was compatible with an increase, a decrease, or no difference in the proportion of conversion to open cholecystectomy due to low pressure pneumoperitoneum. No difference in the length of hospital stay was reported between the groups (five trials; 415 participants; MD -0.30 days; 95% CI -0.63 to 0.02; low quality evidence). Operating time was about two minutes longer in the low pressure group than in the standard pressure group (19 trials; 990 participants; MD 1.51 minutes; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.94; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be completed successfully using low pressure in approximately 90% of people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, no evidence is currently available to support the use of low pressure pneumoperitoneum in low anaesthetic risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety of low pressure pneumoperitoneum has to be established. Further well-designed trials are necessary, particularly in people with cardiopulmonary disorders who undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopy is safe among patients with congestive heart failure undergoing general surgery procedures

BACKGROUND

Over the past 2 decades, laparoscopy has been established as a superior technique in many general surgery procedures. Few studies, however, have examined the impact of the use of a laparoscopic approach in patients with symptomatic congestive heart failure (CHF). Because pneumoperitoneum has known effects on cardiopulmonary physiology, patients with CHF may be at increased risk. This study examines current trends in approaches to patients with CHF and effects on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

The 2005-2011 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant User File was used to identify patients who underwent the following general surgery procedures: Appendectomy, segmental colectomy, small bowel resection, ventral hernia repair, and splenectomy. Included for analysis were those with newly diagnosed CHF or chronic CHF with new signs or symptoms. Trends of use of laparoscopy were assessed across procedure types. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. The independent effect of laparoscopy in CHF was estimated with a multiple logistic regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 265,198 patients were included for analysis, of whom 2,219 were identified as having new or recently worsened CHF. Of these patients, there were 1,300 (58.6%) colectomies, 486 (21.9%) small bowel resections, 216 (9.7%) ventral hernia repairs, 141 (6.4%) appendectomies, and 76 (3.4%) splenectomies. Laparoscopy was used less frequently in patients with CHF compared with their non-CHF counterparts, particularly for nonelective procedures. Baseline characteristics were similar for laparoscopy versus open procedures with the notable exception of urgent/emergent case status (36.4% vs 71.3%; P < .001). After multivariable adjustment, laparoscopy seemed to have a protective effect against mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.45; P = .04), but no differences in other secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSION

For patients with CHF, an open operative approach seems to be utilized more frequently in general surgery procedures, particularly in urgent/emergent cases. Despite these patterns and apparent preferences, laparoscopy seems to offer a safe alternative in appropriately selected patients. Because morbidity and mortality were considerable regardless of approach, further understanding of appropriate management in this population is necessary.

A randomized comparison of gasless laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of the gasless laparoscopic appendectomy (GLA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).

Methods

From Aug 2010 to Feb 2012, 100 patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis in Shanghai Tongji hospital were included in the study and randomly divided into the LA and GLA groups, fifty in the GLA group and 50 in the LA group. The two groups were comparable in age, gender, body mass index, symptom duration, ASA score, and white blood cell count.

Results

The mean surgical duration was 70.6 ± 30.8 min in the GLA group and 62.6 ± 22.0 min in the LA group (P = 0.138). The total conversion rate was 8% in the GLA group, while no conversions occurred in the LA group. Postoperative complications did not significantly differ between the two groups. Fentanyl consumption was decreased significantly in the GLA group (P = 0.019) postoperatively. The length of the total hospital stay was 4.36 ± 1.74 days in the GLA group compared with 5.68 ± 4.44 days in the LA group (P = 0.053). There was a significant decrease in the total hospital cost when the GLA group was compared with the LA group (6659 ± 1782 vs. 9056 ± 2680 Yuan, respectively, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

GLA and conventional LA are comparable in terms of operative duration, complications, and total hospital stay. The obvious advantage of GLA is the significantly reduced hospital cost. The demand for postoperative analgesics may also decrease following GLA. In conclusion, GLA is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Register ChiCTR-TRC-10001203.

A prospective randomized study of systemic inflammation and immune response after laparoscopic nissen fundoplication performed with standard and low-pressure pneumoperitoneum

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare changes in the systemic inflammation and immune response in the early postoperative (p.o.) period after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) was performed with standard-pressure and low-pressure carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied 68 patients with documented gastroesophageal reflux disease and who underwent a LNF: 35 using standard-pressure (12 to 14 mmHg) and 33 low-pressure (6 to 8 mmHg) pneumoperitoneum. White blood cells, peripheral lymphocytes subpopulation, human leukocyte antigen-DR, neutrophil elastase, interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-1, and C-reactive protein were investigated.

RESULTS

A significantly higher concentration of neutrophil elastase, IL-6 and IL-1, and C-reactive protein was detected postoperatively in the standard-pressure group of patients in comparison with the low-pressure group (P<0.05). A statistically significant change in human leukocyte antigen-DR expression was recorded p.o. at 24 hours, as a reduction of this antigen expressed on monocyte surface in patients from standard group; no changes were noted in low-pressure group patients (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that reducing the pressure of the pneumoperitoneum to 6 to 8 mm Hg during LNF is reduced p.o. inflammatory response and avoided p.o. immunosuppression.

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.

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.

Gasless balloon laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

The concept of balloon laparoscopy (B-LSC) pursues the simplification of conventional diagnostic laparoscopy (LSC). The pneumoperitoneum is replaced by a transparent balloon, which is positioned in front of the optical system. It shall be shown that with this arrangement diagnostic LSC can be performed outside of the operating room without requiring general anesthesia.

METHODS

An inflatable balloon was developed for a 30 degrees /3.5-mm rod lens. Intra-abdominally the balloon was expanded to a diameter of 30 mm by air insufflation, and B-LSC was performed. Twelve patients were examined in general anesthesia before laparoscopic surgery. Twelve patients were subjected to B-LSC fully awake or with sedation (midazolam or propofol/S-ketamine) as a "second-look" procedure by way of a flexible trocar (port) left in the abdominal wall at the end of previous operation. Eight patients have been first provided with a trocar under sedation (midazolam or propofol/S-ketamine) combined with local anesthesia, and B-LSC was performed before laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

On a scale of 1-5, the general impression was rated 1.9, the navigability to the different abdominal organs 2.5, the resolution 1.5, the stability of the system optic/trocar 2.1, the suitability of the balloon format 1.9, and the stability of the balloon against lateral shear forces 2.4. The degree of painfulness of the examination was rated 2.8, the tolerance of the port 1.4, and the degree of painfulness of trocar placement at 2.5. On a scale of 1 to 3, the strain of the abdominal musculature was rated 1.4 and the obstruction by adhesions 1.7.

DISCUSSION

B-LSC is technically practicable with good imaging qualities and without requiring pneumoperitoneum. It is tolerated in great extent under slight sedation and particularly well under deep sedation. The procedure is suitable for diagnostics of unclear abdominal conditions, as a second-look LSC and also as a staging LSC.

Low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

A pneumoperitoneum of 12 to 16 mmHg is used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lower pressures are claimed to be safe and effective in decreasing cardiopulmonary complications and pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of low pressure pneumoperitoneum compared with standard pressure 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 (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until November 2008 for identifying randomised trials using search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data on mortality, morbidity, conversion to open cholecystectomy, pain, analgesic requirement, operating time, hospital stay, patient satisfaction, additional measures to increase vision, and cardiopulmonary parameters. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models with RevMan 5 based on available case-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials randomised 690 patients to low pressure (n = 336) and standard pressure (n = 354). All the trials were of high risk of bias. There was no difference in the mortality, morbidity, or conversion to open cholecystectomy between the groups. The intensity of pain was lower in the low pressure group at various time points. The incidence of shoulder pain was lower in the low pressure group (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90). The analgesic consumption was also lower. The operating time was similar between the groups (MD 2.30 minutes; 95% CI 0.42 to 4.18). Because of the high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data in seven trials, it was not possible to conclude about the safety of low pressure pneumoperitoneum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low pressure pneumoperitoneum appears effective in decreasing pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety of low pressure pneumoperitoneum has to be established.

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.