The effects of different abdominal pressures on pulmonary function test results in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Low intra-abdominal pressure in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines do not provide clear recommendations with regard to the use of low intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) during laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the influence of low versus standard IAP during laparoscopic surgery on the key-outcomes in perioperative medicine as defined by the StEP-COMPAC consensus group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials comparing low IAP (<10 mmHg) with standard IAP (10 mmHg or higher) during laparoscopic surgery without time, language, or blinding restrictions. According to the PRISMA guidelines, two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. Risk ratio (RR), and mean difference (MD), with 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects models with RevMan5. Main outcomes were based on StEP-COMPAC recommendations, and included postoperative complications, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) scores, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Eighty-five studies in a wide range of laparoscopic procedures (7349 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The available evidence indicates that the use of low IAP (<10 mmHg) leads to a lower incidence of mild (Clavien-Dindo grade 1-2) postoperative complications (RR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.86), lower pain scores (MD=-0.68, 95% CI: -0.82 to 0.54) and PONV incidence (RR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.51-0.88), and a reduced length of hospital stay (MD=-0.29, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.11). Low IAP did not increase the risk of intraoperative complications (RR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.77-1.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the established safety and the reduced incidence of mild postoperative complications, lower pain scores, reduced incidence of PONV, and shorter length of stay, the available evidence supports a moderate to strong recommendation (1a level of evidence) in favor of low IAP during laparoscopic surgery.

Low-pressure versus standard pressure laparoscopic colorectal surgery (PAROS trial): a phase III randomized controlled trial

TRIAL DESIGN

This is a phase III, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

METHODS

In this trial, patients with laparoscopic colectomy were assigned to either low pressure (LP: 7 mmHg) or standard pressure (SP: 12 mmHg) at a ratio of 1 : 1. The aim of this trial was to assess the impact of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic colectomy on postoperative recovery. The primary endpoint was the duration of hospital stay. The main secondary endpoints were postoperative pain, consumption of analgesics and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Some 138 patients were enrolled, of whom 11 were excluded and 127 were analysed: 62 with LP and 65 with SP. Duration of hospital stay (3 versus 4 days; P = 0.010), visual analog scale (0.5 versus 2.0; P = 0.008) and analgesic consumption (level II: 73 versus 88 per cent; P = 0.032; level III: 10 versus 23 per cent; P = 0.042) were lower with LP. Morbidity was not significantly different between the two groups (10 versus 17 per cent; P = 0.231).

CONCLUSION

Using low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic colonic resection improves postoperative recovery, shortening the duration of hospitalization and decreasing postoperative pain and analgesic consumption. This suggests that low pressure should become the standard of care for laparoscopic colectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03813797.

What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review

Background

Laparoscopic surgery has several advantages when compared to open surgery, including faster postoperative recovery and lower pain scores. However, for laparoscopy, a pneumoperitoneum is required to create workspace between the abdominal wall and intraabdominal organs. Increased intraabdominal pressure may also have negative implications on cardiovascular, pulmonary, and intraabdominal organ functionings. To overcome these negative consequences, several trials have been performed comparing low- versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum.

Methods

A systematic review of all randomized controlled clinical trials and observational studies comparing low- versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum.

Results and conclusions

Quality assessment showed that the overall quality of evidence was moderate to low. Postoperative pain scores were reduced by the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. With appropriate perioperative measures, the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum does not seem to have clinical advantages as compared to standard pressure on cardiac and pulmonary function. Although there are indications that low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is associated with less liver and kidney injury when compared to standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum, this does not seem to have clinical implications for healthy individuals. The influence of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on adhesion formation, anastomosis healing, tumor metastasis, intraocular and intracerebral pressure, and thromboembolic complications remains uncertain, as no human clinical trials have been performed. The influence of pressure on surgical conditions and safety has not been established to date. In conclusion, the most important benefit of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is lower postoperative pain scores, supported by a moderate quality of evidence. However, the quality of surgical conditions and safety of the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum need to be established, as are the values and preferences of physicians and patients regarding the potential benefits and risks. Therefore, the recommendation to use low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopy is weak, and more studies are required.

Evidence for negative effects of elevated intra-abdominal pressure on pulmonary mechanics and oxidative stress

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of pneumoperitoneum on lung mechanics, end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2), arterial blood gases (ABG), and oxidative stress markers in blood and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) by using lung-protective ventilation strategy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-six patients undergoing LC and abdominal wall hernia (AWH) surgery were assigned into 2 groups. Measurements and blood samples were obtained before, during pneumoperitoneum, and at the end of surgery. BALF samples were obtained after anesthesia induction and at the end of surgery.

RESULTS

Peak inspiratory pressure, ETCO2, and pCO2 values at the 30th minute were significantly increased, while there was a significant decrease in dynamic lung compliance, pH, and pO2 values in LC group. In BALF samples, total oxidant status (TOS), arylesterase, paraoxonase, and malondialdehyde levels were significantly increased; the glutathione peroxidase levels were significantly decreased in LC group. The serum levels of TOS and paraoxonase were significantly higher at the end of surgery in LC group. In addition, arylesterase level in the 30th minute was increased compared to baseline. Serum paraoxonase level at the end of surgery was significantly increased when compared to AWH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed negative effects of pneumoperitoneum in both lung and systemic levels despite lung-protective ventilation strategy.

Successful interventional management of abdominal compartment syndrome caused by blunt liver injury with hemorrhagic diathesis

We report that a case of primary abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS), caused by blunt liver injury under the oral anticoagulation therapy, was successfully treated. Transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) was initially selected, and the bleeding point of hepatic artery was embolized with N-Butyl Cyanoacylate (NBCA). Secondary, percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) was performed for massive hemoperitoneum. There are some reports of ACS treated with TAE. However, combination treatment of TAE with NBCA and PCD for ACS has not been reported. Even low invasive interventional procedures may improve primary ACS if the patient has hemorrhagic diathesis or coagulopathy discouraging surgeon from laparotomy.

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.