A prospective randomized, controlled study comparing low pressure versus high pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009;19:234-240. [PMID: 19542853 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0b013e3181a97012]

Low Pressure versus Standard Pressure Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The creation of pneumoperitoneum using higher pressure is believed to be associated with increased postoperative abdominal pain.

AIM

This study aimed to compare postoperative abdominal pain following low pressure laparoscopic appendectomy and standard pressure laparoscopic appendectomy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of 54 patients aged between 18 and 56 years with clinical and/or radiologic diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups: low pressure laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 26) and standard pressure laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 28). The intra-abdominal pressure was kept in either low pressure (9 mm Hg) or standard pressure (13 mm Hg). Abdominal and shoulder pain scores were assessed using the visual analog scale at 6 hours and 3 days post procedure. Postoperative analgesia requirement, duration of surgery, complications, and hospital stay were recorded.

RESULTS

Both groups match for the demographic parameters. Three patients required conversion from low to standard pressure. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of abdominal pain (P = 0.86) and shoulder pain (P = 0.33), duration of surgery (P = 0.51), complications (P = 0.17), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

The use of low pressure pneumoperitoneum did not reduce the incidence of abdominal pain in patients who had laparoscopic appendectomy. Patients with acute appendicitis can be treated with either low or normal pressure pneumoperitoneum depending on the experience of the surgeon.

Impact of Standard Versus Low Pneumoperitoneum Pressure on Peritoneal Environment in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

High CO 2 pneumoperitoneum pressure during laparoscopy adversely affects the peritoneal environment. This study hypothesized that low pneumoperitoneum pressure may be linked to less peritoneal damage and possibly to better clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred patients undergoing scheduled laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized 1:1 to low or to standard pneumoperitoneum pressure. Peritoneal biopsies were performed at baseline time and 1 hour after peritoneum insufflation in all patients. The primary outcome was peritoneal remodeling biomarkers and apoptotic index. Secondary outcomes included biomarker differences at the studied times and some clinical variables such as length of hospital stay, and quality and safety issues related to the procedure.

RESULTS

Peritoneal IL6 after 1 hour of surgery was significantly higher in the standard than in the low-pressure group (4.26±1.34 vs. 3.24±1.21; P =0.001). On the contrary, levels of connective tissue growth factor and plasminogen activator inhibitor-I were higher in the low-pressure group (0.89±0.61 vs. 0.61±0.84; P =0.025, and 0.74±0.89 vs. 0.24±1.15; P =0.028, respectively). Regarding apoptotic index, similar levels were found in both groups and were 44.0±10.9 and 42.5±17.8 in low and standard pressure groups, respectively. None of the secondary outcomes showed differences between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Peritoneal inflammation after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is higher when surgery is performed under standard pressure. Adhesion formation seems to be less in this group. The majority of patients undergoing surgery under low pressure were operated under optimal workspace conditions, regardless of the surgeon's expertise.

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with deep neuromuscular blockade versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstone disease: a non-inferiority randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LPP) is an attempt at improving laparoscopic surgery. However, it has the issue of poor working space for which deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) may be a solution. There is a lack of literature comparing LPP with deep NMB to standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (SPP) with moderate NMB.

METHODOLOGY

This was a single institutional prospective non-inferiority RCT, with permuted block randomization of subjects into group A and B [Group A: LPP; 8-10 mmHg with deep NMB [ Train of Four count (TOF): 0, Post Tetanic Count (PTC): 1-2] and Group B: SPP; 12-14 mmHg with moderate NMB]. The level of NMB was monitored with neuromuscular monitor with TOF count and PTC. Cisatracurium infusion was used for continuous deep NMB in group A. Primary outcome measures were the surgeon satisfaction score and the time for completion of the procedure. Secondarily important clinical outcomes were also reported.

RESULTS

Of the 222 patients screened, 181 participants were enrolled [F: 138 (76.2%); M: 43 (23.8%); Group A n = 90, Group B n = 91]. Statistically similar surgeon satisfaction scores (26.1 ± 3.7 vs 26.4 ± 3.4; p = 0.52) and time for completion (55.2 ± 23.4 vs 52.5 ± 24.9 min; p = 0.46) were noted respectively in groups A and B. On both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis it was found that group A was non-inferior to group B in terms of total surgeon satisfaction score, however, non-inferiority was not proven for time for completion of surgery. Mean pain scores and incidence of shoulder pain were statistically similar up-to 7 days of follow-up in both groups. 4 (4.4%) patients in group B and 2 (2.2%) in group A had bradycardia (p = 0.4). Four (4.4%) cases of group A were converted to group B. One case of group B converted to open surgery. Bile spills and gallbladder perforations were comparable.

CONCLUSION

LPP with deep NMB is non-inferior to SPP with moderate NMB in terms of surgeon satisfaction score but not in terms of time required to complete the procedure. Clinical outcomes and safety profile are similar in both groups. However, it could be marginally costlier to use LPP with deep NMB.

A randomised clinical trial to study postoperative abdominal and shoulder tip pain following low and standard pressure laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become the gold standard for the management of symptomatic gallstone disease. The complications related to different pressure ranges of pneumoperitoneum have been studied widely with no definite conclusion till date. The current study was planned to determine the effect of standard versus low pressure laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LPLC) on postoperative abdominal and shoulder tip pain (STP).

Methods

The present randomised clinical trial included 84 patients divided into two groups: standard pressure laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) (13 mmHg) and LPLC (9 mmHg). The variables tested were abdominal pain at 3, 6, 12 and 24 h (by verbal rating scale), the incidence and intensity of STP, post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and surgeon's comfort for the two techniques.

Results

The demographic characteristics of patients were similar in both groups. In LPP group, the postoperative abdominal pain at 6, 12 and 24 h was significantly less than SPLC; p = 0.02. Incidence of shoulder pain was significantly less in low pressure group (7.14%) compared with standard pressure (28.57%).

Conclusions

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LPP) is safe and feasible surgery with reduced abdominal and STP.

Utilization of deep neuromuscular blockade combined with reduced abdominal pressure in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An academic perspective

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the specific efficacy of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) combined with pneumoperitoneal pressure reduction in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy (LRG) in the elderly.

AIM

To investigate the application effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) combined with reduced pneumoperitoneum pressure in LRG for gastric cancer (GC) in elderly patients and its influence on inflammation.

METHODS

Totally 103 elderly patients with GC treated in our hospital between January 2020 and January 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 45 patients treated with surgery based on deep NMB and conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure were assigned to the control group, while the rest of the 58 patients who underwent surgery based on deep NMB and reduced pneumoperitoneum pressure were assigned to the observation group. The two groups were compared in the changes of the Leiden-surgical rating scale score, serum tumor necrosis fact-α (TNF-α) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) before and after therapy. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was adopted for evaluating the shoulder pain of patients at 8 h, 24 h and 48 h after the operation. The driving pressure of the two groups at different time points was also compared. Additionally, the operation time, pneumoperitoneum time, infusion volume, blood loss, extubation time after surgery, residence time in the resuscitation room, TOF% = 90% time and post-anesthetic recovery room (PACU) stay time were all recorded, and adverse PACU-associated respiratory events were also recorded. The postoperative hospitalization time and postoperative expenses of the two groups were counted and compared.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the two groups at the time of skin incision, 60 minutes since the operation and abdominal closure after surgery (P > 0.05). The observation group exhibited significantly lower VAS scores than the control group at 24 and 48h after surgery (P < 0.05). Additionally, the observation group had significantly lower driving pressure than the control group at 5 min and 60 min after the establishment of pneumoperitoneum (P < 0.05). Additionally, the two groups were similar in terms of the operation time, pneumoperitoneum time, infusion volume, blood loss, extubation time after surgery, residence time in the resuscitation room and TOF% = 90% time (P > 0.05), and the observation group showed significantly lower TNF-α and IL-6 Levels than the control group at 24 h after therapy (P < 0.05). Moreover, the incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05), and the observation group experienced significantly less hospitalization time and postoperative expenses than the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Deep NMB combined with reduced pneumoperitoneum pressure can decrease the VAS score of shoulder pain and inflammatory reaction, without hindering the surgical vision and increasing adverse PACU-associated respiratory events, and can thus shorten the hospitalization time and treatment cost for patient.

Effects of extremely low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on postoperative recovery after single site robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

A robotic platform has enabled extremely low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (ELPP, 4 mmHg) to reduce surgical insults to human physiology during a minimally invasive surgery. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of ELPP in single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) on postoperative pain, shoulder pain, and physiological changes during surgery compared to a standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (SPP, 12-14 mmHg).

METHODS

A total of 182 patients who underwent an elective cholecystectomy were randomized into an ELPP SSRC group (n = 91) and an SPP SSRC group (n = 91). Postoperative pain was assessed at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h after surgery. The number of patients complaining of shoulder pain was observed. Intraoperative changes of ventilatory parameters were also measured.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain scores (p = 0.038, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.015 at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h after surgery, respectively) and the number of patients with shoulder pain (p <0.001) were significantly lower in the ELPP SSRC group than in the SPP SSRC group. Intraoperative changes in peak inspiratory pressure (p < 0.001), plateau pressure (p < 0.001), EtCO₂ (p < 0.001), and lung compliance (p < 0.001) were also less in the ELPP SSRC group.

CONCLUSION

The ELPP during robotic cholecystectomy could significantly relieve postoperative pain and shoulder pain. In addition, the ELPP can reduce changes in lung compliance during surgery and the demand for postoperative analgesics, thereby improving the quality of life of patients during early stages of postoperative rehabilitation.

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.

Translation from manual to automatic endoscopic insufflation enhanced by a pressure limiter

BACKGROUND

Optimal visualization and safety have always been essential in performing any type of endoscopic surgery. However, the safety of automatic gastrointestinal (GI) insufflation has yet to be thoroughly studied, especially when combined with manual insufflation. The current study aimed to verify whether the pressure limiter could lower GI endoluminal pressure during endoscopic procedures and affect the behavioral patterns of endoscopists.

METHODS

A preclinical blinded trial was conducted on endoscopists who had no knowledge regarding the presence of the pressure limiter that prevents a GI endoluminal pressure above 25 mmHg. Endoscopists in group A performed esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with our insufflation device equipped with the pressure limiter, whereas those in group B performed the same procedure without the pressure limiter. During all procedures, endoluminal pressure was continuously monitored. The primary endpoint of the current study was to measure the endoluminal pressure with or without the pressure limiter during esophageal ESD, while the secondary endpoint was to evaluate the effect of the pressure limiter on intraesophageal pressure and perioperative outcomes during esophageal ESD. A questionnaire survey was conducted after each session.

RESULTS

A total of 79 endoscopists were included in this randomized control study. Group A had significantly lower endoluminal pressure than group B (10.6 ± 4.61 vs. 16.25 ± 7.51 mmHg, respectively; p < 0.05). Although two pigs in group B died from tension pneumothorax, none in group A died. Evaluation of lumen expansion, ease of aspiration, and visual field reproducibility were poorer in group A than in group B, although all fell within the acceptable range. Subjective evaluation of usability was divided into two categories, Excellent/Good and Poor/Bad, with no significant differences in any of the items.

CONCLUSIONS

This preclinical study showed that endoscopic treatment with an automatic insufflation system could be performed at lower endoluminal pressure with a pressure limiter, which had no adverse effects on the endoscopist's feels on endoscopic procedures with the device.

Review of Outcomes of Low Verses Standard Pressure Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopy changes cardiorespiratory physiology and contributes to post-op pain. We studied outcomes before and after implementing low-pressure pneumoperitoneum QI project.

METHODS

Forty-two patients were insufflated at standard pressures (15 mmHg) while 41 were insufflated using low (8-12 mmHg) during laparoscopic procedures. These variables were obtained from the patient chart: pain scores, intravenous morphine milligram equivalents (MME), peak inspiratory pressures (PIP), end-tidal CO₂ (EtCO₂), surgery duration, and patient demographics. The study was conducted after IRB approval.

RESULTS

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is feasible and the surgeon can increase to 10-12 mmHg as needed. The mean post-op IV MME was significantly decreased in the low-pressure group (11.75 ± 10.41) compared to the standard pressure group (17.36 ± 18.1) (t-test, P = .047). Mean peak inspiratory pressures during insufflation were significantly higher for procedures conducted at standard pressure (31.40 ± 4.82) compared to the 8 mmHg (24.68 ± 4.19) and 12 mmHg (27.33± 3.85) low pressure groups (one-way ANOVA, P < .0001). During insufflation, there was a significant increase in the average EtCO₂ in the standard pressure group (42.07 ± 5.60) compared to the 8 mmHg low pressure group (37.59 ± 5.05) (ANOVA, P = .0096). Constant flow insufflation was more likely to be performed at low pressure than demand mode (58% v. 33%).

CONCLUSION

Low pressure pneumoperitoneum decreases PIP pressure and CO2 absorption evidenced by lower ETCO2 intra-operatively. Patients have significant improvement in postoperative pain evidenced by decreased narcotics needed. Low pressure pneumoperitoneum using a constant flow insufflator is safe and results in improved patient outcomes.

Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

It has been previously demonstrated that the rise of intra-abdominal pressures and prolonged exposure to such pressures can produce changes in the cardiovascular and pulmonary dynamic which, though potentially well tolerated in the majority of healthy patients with adequate cardiopulmonary reserve, may be less well tolerated when cardiopulmonary reserve is poor.

Nevertheless, theoretically lowering intra-abdominal pressure could reduce the impact of pneumoperitoneum on the blood circulation of intra-abdominal organs as well as cardiopulmonary function. However, the evidence remains weak, and as such, the debate remains unresolved. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to demonstrate the current knowledge around the effect of pneumoperitoneum at different pressures levels during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Materials and methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to the recommendations of the 2020 updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.

Results

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 44 randomized controlled trials that compared different pressures of pneumoperitoneum in the setting of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Length of hospital, conversion rate, and complications rate were not significantly different, whereas statistically significant differences were observed in post-operative pain and analgesic consumption. According to the GRADE criteria, overall quality of evidence was high for intra-operative bile spillage (critical outcome), overall complications (critical outcome), shoulder pain (critical outcome), and overall post-operative pain (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was moderate for conversion to open surgery (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 1 day (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 3 days (important outcome), and bleeding (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was low for operative time (important outcome), length of hospital stay (important outcome), post-operative pain at 12 h (critical outcome), and was very low for post-operative pain at 1 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 4 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 8 h (critical outcome), and post-operative pain at 2 days (critical outcome).

Conclusions

This review allowed us to draw conclusive results from the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with an adequate quality of evidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09201-1.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Local anaesthetic infiltration is widely used to reduce pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This trial evaluated the effect of depth of local anaesthetic infiltration on postoperative pain reduction after LC.

Methods

Patients undergoing elective LC between March 2018 and February 2019 were randomized into no infiltration, subcutaneous infiltration, and rectus sheath infiltration using bupivacaine. The primary outcome was 24-h postoperative cumulative morphine use, and the secondary outcomes were mean 24-h Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, and nausea, and vomiting. Subgroups were compared and multivariable analyses were performed.

Results

Out of 170 eligible patients, 162 were selected and 150 patients were analysed: 48 in the no-infiltration group, 50 in the subcutaneous infiltration group, and 52 in the rectus sheath infiltration group. The groups had similar clinical features, although mean BMI was higher in the subcutaneous infiltration group (P = 0.001). The 24-h cumulative morphine use in the rectus sheath infiltration group was significantly lower than in the no-infiltration group (P = 0.043), but no difference was observed between the subcutaneous infiltration and no-infiltration groups (P = 0.999). One hour after surgery, the rectus sheath infiltration group had a significantly lower NRS score than the no-infiltration and subcutaneous infiltration groups respectively (P = 0.006 and P = 0.031); however, the score did not differ among the three groups at any of the time points from 2 h after the surgery. The incidence of nausea or vomiting was comparable among the three groups. Multivariable analysis documented that a lower dose of morphine use was associated with rectus sheath infiltration (P = 0.004) and diabetes (P = 0.001); whereas, increased morphine use was associate with age (P = 0.040) and a longer duration of surgery (P = 0.007).

Conclusions

Local anaesthetic infiltration into the rectus sheath reduced postoperative cumulative morphine use and the immediate NRS score in patients undergoing LC; however, the pain scores were comparable 2 h after surgery.

Registration number

TCTR20201103002 (http://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org).

Reduced Laparoscopic Intra-abdominal Pressure During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Its Effect on Post-operative Pain: a Double-Blinded Randomised Control Trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is regarded as the gold standard for the surgical management of cholelithiasis. To improve post-operative pain, low-pressure laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LPLC) have been trialed. A recent systematic review found that LPLC reduced pain; however, many of the randomised control trials were at a high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low.

METHODS

One hundred patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to a LPLC (8 mmHg) or a standard pressure laparoscopic cholecystectomy (12 mmHg) (SPLC) with surgeons and anaesthetists blinded to the pressure. Pressures were increased if vision was compromised. Primary outcomes were post-operative pain and analgesia requirements at 4-6 h and 24 h.

RESULTS

Intra-operative visibility was significantly reduced in LPLC (p<0.01) resulting in a higher number of operations requiring the pressure to be increased (29% vs 8%, p=0.010); however, there were no differences in length of operation or post-operative outcomes. Pain scores were comparable at all time points across all pressures; however, recovery room fentanyl requirement was more than four times higher when comparing 8 to 12 mmHg (12.5mcg vs 60mcg, p=0.047). Nausea and vomiting was also higher when comparing these pressures (0/36 vs 7/60, p=0.033). Interestingly, when surgeons estimated the operating pressure, they were correct in only 69% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Although pain scores were similar, there was a significant reduction in fentanyl requirement and nausea/vomiting in LPLC. Although LPLC compromised intra-operative visibility requiring increased pressure in some cases, there was no difference in complications, suggesting LPLC is safe and beneficial to attempt in all patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000205134).

Effectiveness of local anesthetic application methods in postoperative pain control in laparoscopic cholecystectomies; a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a minimally invasive procedure that causes pain originating from parietal and visceral peritoneum. Many studies have been conducted to improve postoperative pain management and comfort of patients. Various methods such as local anesthetic injection (LAI) at trocar access points, intraperitoneal local anesthetic injection (IPLA), pneumoperitoneum pressure reduction, transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB), and reducing the number of trocars used during the operation were attempted to reduce postoperative pain.

METHODS

In this study, we compared LAI, TAPB and IPLA methods with the control group in which no local anesthetic was applied to reduce postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We also demonstrated the effect of these methods on postoperative pain, need for additional analgesics, length of hospitalization, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Overall, 160 patients aged 18-74 years who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis between October 2018 and August 2019 were included in the study and divided into four groups as follows: LAI group, TAPB group, IPLA group, and the control group without any intervention. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) values at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h in the control group were significantly higher than in the LAI, TAPB, and IPLA groups. Further, VAS values at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h in the IPLA group were significantly higher than in the LAI and TAPB groups. No significant difference was observed between the LAI and TAPB groups in terms of VAS values at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 24 h. VAS values at 12 h in the LAI group were significantly higher than in the TAPB group.

CONCLUSIONS

Peroperative local anesthetic administration methods were more effective in preventing pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to the control group. In addition to reducing postoperative pain, these methods reduced the need for postoperative analgesics and increased patient satisfaction.

Low-pressure Pneumoperitoneum With Abdominal Wall Lifting Versus Standard Pressure Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Fundoplication for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the treatment results of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with abdominal wall lifting (AWL+LP, 6 mm Hg) versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (SP, 12 mm Hg) during laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), using propensity score matching (PSM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made of 362 patients, 123 in the AWL+LP group and 239 in the SP group, who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD from January 2010 to December 2017. Perioperative and prognostic outcomes were compared after PSM with 1:1 match.

RESULTS

After PSM, 107 matched pairs were obtained. Compared with the SP group at 30 and 60 minutes after pneumoperitoneal initiation, the AWL+LP group showed significantly lower end-tidal carbon dioxide value (P<0.001, <0.001, respectively), lower partial pressure of carbon dioxide value (P<0.001, 0.016, respectively) and significantly higher pH value (P<0.001, <0.001, respectively). However, postoperative shoulder pain, abdominal pain, and arrhythmia in the AWL+LP group were less than those in SP group (P=0.01, 0.017, 0.005, respectively). There was no significant difference in operative time (106.54±27.80 vs. 107.38±24.78 min), blood loss [15 mL (interquartile range: 12.5 to 20 mL) vs.15 mL (interquartile range: 10 to 20 mL)], length of stay (4 vs. 4 d), the wound ecchymosis [2 (1.87%) vs. 3 (2.80%)] and rates of recurrence [8 (7.48%) vs. 5 (4.67%)] between AWL+LP group and SP group.

CONCLUSION

AWL+LP resulted in comparable perioperative and prognostic outcomes with less impact on changes in cardiorespiratory function compared with SP approaches of laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD.

A narrative review on the potential benefits and limitations of deep neuromuscular blockade

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular blockade was shown to improve surgical conditions. However, the risk of residual neuromuscular blockade upon extubation prevents anaesthesiologists from maintaining complete paralysis. For this reason, deep NMB is still underused in anaesthesia. This review focused on answering six questions revolving around the use of deep NMB versus moderate NMB.

METHODS

This was a non-exhaustive narrative review based on 6 selected relevant questions: does deep NMB 1) improve surgical conditions? 2) reduce surgical complications? 3) facilitate a reduction in intraoperative pneumoperitoneum pressure (PnP)? 4) does a reduction in intraoperative PnP impact clinical outcomes? 5) does the combination of deep NMB and lower PnP improve respiratory parameters? 6) improve OR efficiency or readmission rates?

RESULTS

This review highlights some of the key studies that have demonstrated potential benefits of deep NMB, but it also included reports showing no benefit, highlighting that the evidence is not unequivocal. Deep NMB does in fact improve surgical conditions, but whether this improvement translates into improved clinical outcomes is far from concluded. Indeed, there is an increased risk or residual curarisation, especially if patients are not monitored and reversed appropriately. The most important benefit of deep NMB may be the prevention of unacceptable surgical working conditions. The other potential major benefits are the reduction in PnP and reduction in pain. Deep NMB must be used with appropriate monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Deep NMB was associated with an improvement in surgical conditions, reduction in PnP, pain, and complications; but further research is needed to definitively prove this relationship.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors which reduce the length of stay associated with elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe ambulatory procedure in appropriately selected patients; however, day case rates remain low. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify interventions which are effective in reducing the length of stay (LOS) or improving the day case rate for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Comparative English-language studies describing perioperative interventions applicable to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adult patients and their impact on LOS or day case rate were included.

RESULTS

Quantitative data were available for meta-analysis from 80 studies of 10,615 patients. There were an additional 17 studies included for systematic review. The included studies evaluated 14 peri-operative interventions. Implementation of a formal day case care pathway was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (MD = 24.9 h, 95% CI, 18.7-31.2, p < 0.001) and an improved day case rate (OR = 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.1, p = 0.005). Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, dexamethasone and prophylactic antibiotics were associated with smaller reductions in LOS.

CONCLUSION

Care pathway implementation demonstrated a significant impact on LOS and day case rates. A limited effect was noted for smaller independent interventions. In order to achieve optimal day case targets, a greater understanding of the effective elements of a care pathway and local barriers to implementation is required.

Low-pressure Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

To compare the changes in hepatic enzymes and comfort level of the surgeon in low-pressure pneumoperitoneum laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LPPLC, 7 mm Hg) with that of normal pressure pneumoperitoneum laparoscopic cholecystectomy (NPPLC, 14 mm Hg).

METHODS

Eighty-two patients were randomly divided into 2 groups (LPPLC and NPPLC). Serum levels of bilirubin, serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase, alkaline phosphatase, and lactate dehydrogenase were measured before the operation, at the time of reversal from anesthesia, 24 hours after the operation, and on day 7. Serious adverse events, intra-operative complications, surgeon's comfort level of dissection, operative time, conversion rates to an open procedure, or normal pressure pneumoperitoneum were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 41 patients randomized for LPPLC, 8 patients were converted to NPPLC due to difficulty in dissection and 1 converted to open in each group. There was statistically significant fall in mean serum bilirubin level in both the groups in the immediate postoperative period (P<0.05). Statistically significant increase in its level was observed after 24 hours in the NPPLC group only (P<0.05). Levels of mean serum serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase, and lactate dehydrogenase increased significantly (P<0.05) in immediate postoperative period and a further increase was observed after 24 hours (P<0.05) in the NPPLC group only. The comfort level of surgeon was found to be significantly better in the NPPLC group.

CONCLUSIONS

LPPLC is a safe procedure, especially in the hands of an experienced surgeon with clinically insignificant systemic effects. But the comfort level of surgeon is better in normal pressure when compared with low pressure. In patients with deranged hepatic functions undergoing advanced laparoscopic procedures, it is advisable to start the surgery with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. Pressure may be escalated further as per the surgeon's comfort.

Less is more: clinical impact of decreasing pneumoperitoneum pressures during robotic surgery

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of decreasing insufflation pressure during robotic gynecologic surgery. The primary outcomes were patient-reported postoperative pain scores and length of stay. Secondary outcomes include surgical time, blood loss, and intraoperative respiratory parameters. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing robotic surgery for benign gynecologic conditions by a single minimally invasive surgeon at an academic hospital between 2014 and 2017. Patients were categorized by the maximum insufflation pressure reached during the surgery as either 15, 12, 10, or 8 mmHg. Continuous variables were compared using analysis of variance and χ² test was used for categorical variables. 598 patients were included in this study with no differences in age, BMI, race, prior abdominal surgeries, or specimen weight between the four cohorts. When comparing cohorts, each decrease in insufflation pressure correlated with a significant decrease in initial pain scores (5.9 vs 5.4 vs 4.4 vs. 3.8, p ≤ 0.001), and hospital length of stay (449 vs 467 vs 351 vs. 317 min, p ≤ 0.001). There were no differences in duration of surgery (p = 0.31) or blood loss (p = 0.09). Lower operating pressures were correlated with significantly lower peak inspiratory pressures (p < 0.001) and tidal volumes (p < 0.001). Surgery performed at lower-pressure pneumoperitoneum (≤ 10 mmHg) is associated with lower postoperative pain scores, shorter length of stay, and improved intraoperative respiratory parameters without increased duration of surgery or blood loss. Operating at lower insufflation pressures is a low-cost, reversible intervention that should be implemented during robotic surgery as it results in the improved pain scores and shorter hospital stays.

The impact of intra-abdominal pressure on perioperative outcomes in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy involves using intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) to facilitate adequate surgical conditions. However, there is no consensus on optimal IAP levels to improve surgical outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to examine outcomes of low, standard, and high IAP among adults undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

An electronic database search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outcomes of low, standard, and high IAP among adults undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to conduct pairwise meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparisons of the levels of IAP assessed across trials.

Results

The SLR and NMA included 22 studies. Compared with standard IAP, on a scale of 0 (no pain at all) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), low IAP was associated with significantly lower overall pain scores at 24 h (mean difference [MD]: − 0.70; 95% credible interval [CrI]: − 1.26, − 0.13) and reduced risk of shoulder pain 24 h (odds ratio [OR] 0.24; 95% CrI 0.12, 0.48) and 72 h post-surgery (OR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.07, 0.65). Hospital stay was shorter with low IAP (MD: − 0.14 days; 95% CrI − 0.30, − 0.01). High IAP was not associated with a significant difference for these outcomes when compared with standard or low IAP. No significant differences were found between the IAP levels regarding need for conversion to open surgery; post-operative acute bleeding, pain at 72 h, nausea, and vomiting; and duration of surgery.

Conclusions

Our study of published trials indicates that using low, as opposed to standard, IAP during laparoscopic cholecystectomy may reduce patients’ post-operative pain, including shoulder pain, and length of hospital stay. Heterogeneity in the pooled estimates and high risk of bias of the included trials suggest the need for high-quality, adequately powered RCTs to confirm these findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-07527-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects of low versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum on renal syndecan-1 shedding and VEGF receptor-2 expression in living-donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled study

Background

Laparoscopic nephrectomy is a preferred technique for living kidney donation. However, positive-pressure pneumoperitoneum may have an unfavorable effect on the remaining kidney and other distant organs due to inflamed vascular endothelium and renal tubular cell injury in response to increased systemic inflammation. Early detection of vascular endothelial and renal tubular response is needed to prevent further kidney injury due to increased intraabdominal pressure induced by pneumoperitoneum. Transperitoneal laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy represented a human model of mild increasing intraabdominal pressure. This study aimed to assess the effect of increased intraabdominal pressure on vascular endothelium and renal tubular cells by comparing the effects of low and standard pressure pneumoperitoneum on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) expression and the shedding of syndecan-1 as the early markers to a systemic inflammation.

Methods

We conducted a prospective randomized study on 44 patients undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Subjects were assigned to standard (12 mmHg) or low pressure (8 mmHg) groups. Baseline, intraoperative, and postoperative plasma interleukin-6, syndecan-1, and sVEGFR-2 were quantified by ELISA. Syndecan-1 and VEGFR-2 expression were assessed immunohistochemically in renal cortex tissue. Renal tubule and peritubular capillary ultrastructures were examined using electron microscopy. Perioperative hemodynamic changes, end-tidal CO₂, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, and urinary KIM-1 were recorded.

Results

The low pressure group showed lower intra- and postoperative heart rate, intraoperative plasma IL-6, sVEGFR-2 levels and plasma syndecan-1 than standard pressure group. Proximal tubule syndecan-1 expression was higher in the low pressure group. Proximal-distal tubules and peritubular capillary endothelium VEGFR-2 expression were lower in low pressure group. The low pressure group showed renal tubule and peritubular capillary ultrastructure with intact cell membranes, clear cell boundaries, and intact brush borders, while standard pressure group showed swollen nuclei, tenuous cell membrane, distant boundaries, vacuolizations, and detached brush borders.

Conclusion

The low pressure pneumoperitoneum attenuated the inflammatory response and resulted in reduction of syndecan-1 shedding and VEGFR-2 expression as the renal tubular and vascular endothelial proinflammatory markers to injury due to a systemic inflammation in laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT:03219398, prospectively registered on July 17th, 2017.

Impact of different intraoperative CO2 pressure levels (8 and 15 mmHg) during laparoscopic hysterectomy performed due to benign uterine pathologies on postoperative pain and arterial pCO2 : a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of two different intraoperative CO₂ pressures (8 and 15 mmHg) during laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign uterine pathologies in terms of postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain, laparoscopy-mediated vegetative alterations, pain medication requirement, arterial CO₂ pressure (pCO₂ ), surgical parameters, and safety.

DESIGN

Prospective randomised controlled study.

SETTING

German university hospital.

POPULATION

Female patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign uterine pathologies.

METHODS

Patients were randomised to a standard pressure (SP; 15 mmHg, control) or low-pressure (LP; 8 mmHg, experimental) group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain intensities, measured via numeric rating scale (NRS) and vegetative parameters (fatigue, nausea, vomiting, bloating) at 3, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were pain medication requirement (mg) and arterial pCO₂ (mmHg). Surgical parameters and intra- and postoperative complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

In total, 178 patients were included. Patients in the LP group (n = 91) showed significantly lower postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain scores, fewer vegetative alterations, lower pain medication requirements, a shorter postoperative hospitalization, and lower intra- and postoperative arterial pCO₂ values compared with the SP group (n = 87; P ≤ 0.01). No differences in intra- and postoperative complications were observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-pressure laparoscopy seems to be an effective and safe technique for the reduction of postoperative pain and laparoscopy-induced metabolic and vegetative alterations following laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Low-pressure laparoscopy seems to be an effective and safe technique for reduction of pain following laparoscopic hysterectomy.

[Comparison of standard and fast track rehabilitation in patients with acute appendicitis. Intermediate results of multicenter prospective randomized trial]

AIM

To analyze outcomes of fast track rehabilitation in patients with acute appendicitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective, randomized multi-center trial including 86 patients was conducted. There were 38 patients in the main group and 48 in the control group. All patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy under endotracheal anesthesia. Protocol included informing, no premedication, glucose infusion prior to surgery, antibiotics administration, mesoappendix excision, limited deployment of drainage tubes, intraabdominal prolonged anesthesia, minimal pneumoperitoneum, limited irrigation, minimum power monopolar electrocautery, antiemetics, early activation and eating (2 and 6 hours after surgery). Pain was evaluated by visual-analogue scale. Auscultative peristalsis was considered every 2 hours after surgery. Cortisol level was assessed preoperatively, in 6 and 12-24 hours after surgery in 11 (29%) and 15 (31%) patients of the main and control groups respectively. Discharge criteria: no leukocytosis, fever and pain syndrome requiring anesthesia, no signs of complications and patient's consent.

RESULTS

Terms of disease, gender, age and comorbidities were similar in all patients. Duration of surgery under minimal pneumoperitoneum and standard pressure was also similar: 69.2±3.98 and 70.9±3.89 min (p=0.762). Pain syndrome grade and need for analgesics were significantly lower in the main group within entire follow-up. Pain syndrome was absent at the 1^st postoperative day in 16 (42%) and 2 (4.1%) patients of both groups, respectively (score 0-1). Phrenic nerve syndrome was observed in 36.8% of the main group and 60.4% of the control group (p=0.05). Incidence of dyspepsia and terms of peristalsis onset were similar. Length of hospital-stay was 1.45 days in the main group and 3.15 days in the control group (p=0.002). In the main group 18 (47%) patients were discharged on the first day after surgery. There were only 4 (8.3%) patients with similar hospital-stay in the control group (p<0.001). There were no repeated hospitalizations. Postoperative cortisol concentration was similar in both groups as well as in complicated and uneventful postoperative period. In the main group postoperative intestinal paresis (Clavien-Dindo grade 2) occurred in 1 patient. In the control group 7 patients had postoperative infiltrate and 1 patient - intestinal paresis (Clavien-Dindo grade 2). Postoperative drainage tube was deployed in 3 out of 7 patients with postoperative infiltrates and 6 of them received antibiotic therapy. Medication was successfully applied in all patients with complications.

CONCLUSION

There are some advantages of FTR for AA including reduced pain syndrome, morbidity and less length of hospital-stay. Issue of cortisol concentration requires further trials.

[Fast-track rehabilitation for acute cholecystitis: intermediate outcomes of prospective randomized trial]

AIM

To analyze an efficacy of FT-protocol in patients with acute cholecystitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective randomized study included 102 patients (45 of main group (FT) and 57 of control groups). Patients did not differ by TG13 severity index. The protocol included information, antibiotic prophylaxis, restriction of drainage, intraperitoneal anesthesia with long-term anesthetics, low pressure pneumoperitoneum, antiemetics in the presence of risk factors, early activation and feeding of the patient. Pain was assessed by VAS immediately after surgery, and 2, 6 and 12-24 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

Surgery time was similar in both groups. Need for anesthesia and pain severity were significantly lower in the FT group. A total absence of pain (VAS 0-1) on the 1^st postoperative day was noted in 8 (17.7%) of the FT group and 2 (3.5%) patients of the control group (p=0.038). Shoulder pain developed in 4 (8.9%) cases of the main and 22 (38.6%) cases of the control group (p=0.001). Postoperative nausea developed in 13% of the FT group vs 40.5% in the control group (p=0.05). Hospital-stay was 1.29±0.7 days and 2.7±1.6 (p<0.0001), respectively. The time of the first stool was similar. Twenty-four (53.5%) patients of the FT group and 8,9% of the control group were discharged on 1^st postoperative day. There were 2 (IIIA) complications in the main group and 3 - in the control group (IIIA, IIIB and IV). There were no mortality and readmissions.

CONCLUSION

FT protocol in AC reduce postoperative pain, dyspepsia, shoulder pain and in-hospital stay with equal number of postoperative complications.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera (e.g. bowel, bladder) or to vasculature (e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels). No clear consensus has been reached as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registers in January 2018. We also checked the references of articles retrieved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one laparoscopic entry technique versus another. Primary outcomes were major complications including mortality, vascular injury of major vessels and abdominal wall vessels, visceral injury of bladder or bowel, gas embolism, solid organ injury, and failed entry (inability to access the peritoneal cavity). Secondary outcomes were extraperitoneal insufflation, trocar site bleeding, trocar site infection, incisional hernia, omentum injury, and uterine bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques. Most studies selected low-risk patients, and many studies excluded patients with high body mass index (BMI) and previous abdominal surgery. Researchers did not find evidence of differences in major vascular or visceral complications, as would be anticipated given that event rates were very low and sample sizes were far too small to identify plausible differences in rare but serious adverse events.Open-entry versus closed-entryTen RCTs investigating Veress needle entry reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 1086 participants and 10 events of vascular injury were reported. Four RCTs looking at open entry technique reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 376 participants and 0 events of vascular injury were reported. This was not a direct comparison. In the direct comparison of Veress needle and Open-entry technique, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n = 915; I² = N/A, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n = 915: I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n = 865; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mortality with no events in either group. No studies reported gas embolism or solid organ injury.Direct trocar versus Veress needle entryTrial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; N = 3185; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.96; 6 RCTs; n = 1603; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.42; 5 RCTs; n = 1519; I² = 25%; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.06 to 5.65; 3 RCTs; n = 1079; I² = 61%; very low-quality evidence). Four studies reported mortality with no events in either group. Two studies reported gas embolism, with no events in either group.Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n = 186; very low-quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n = 380; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Direct vision entry versus open entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n = 392; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported vascular injury with no events in either arm. Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocarsEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n = 331; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n = 331; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n = 244; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Other studies compared a wide variety of other laparoscopic entry techniques, but all evidence was of very low quality and evidence was insufficient to support the use of one technique over another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.

Deep Neuromuscular Blockade Improves Laparoscopic Surgical Conditions: A Randomized, Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

Sustained deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) during laparoscopic surgery may facilitate optimal surgical conditions. This exploratory study assessed whether deep NMB improves surgical conditions and, in doing so, allows use of lower insufflation pressures during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We further assessed whether use of low insufflation pressure improves patient pain scores after surgery.

METHODS

This randomized, controlled, blinded study (NCT01728584) compared use of deep (1-2 post-tetanic-counts) or moderate (train-of-four ratio 10%) NMB, and lower (8 mmHg) or higher (12 mmHg; 'standard') insufflation pressure in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Primary endpoint was surgeon's overall satisfaction with surgical conditions, rated at end of surgery using an 11-point numerical scale. Post-operative pain scores were also evaluated. Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

Of 127 randomized patients, 120 had evaluable data for the primary endpoint. Surgeon's score of overall satisfaction with surgical conditions was significantly higher with deep versus moderate NMB indicated by a least-square mean difference of 1.1 points (95% confidence interval 0.1-2.0; P = 0.026). Furthermore, strong evidence of an effect was observed for standard versus low pressure: least-square mean difference of 3.0 points (95% confidence interval 2.1-4.0; P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in average pain scores within 24 h post-surgery for low versus standard pressure [0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.67 to +0.33); P = 0.494].

CONCLUSIONS

Although associated with significantly improved surgical conditions, deep NMB alone was insufficient to promote use of low insufflation pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Furthermore, low insufflation pressure did not result in reduced pain, compared with standard pressure.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01728584.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Which intraperitoneal insufflation pressure should be used for less postoperative pain in transperitoneal laparoscopic urologic surgeries?

Purpose

To determine whether using different intraperitoneal insufflation pressures for transperitoneal laparoscopic urologic surgeries decreases postoperative pain.

Materials and Methods

76 patients who underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic upper urinary tract surgery at different insufflation pressures were allocated into the following groups: 10mmHg (group I, n=24), 12mmHg (group II, n=25) and 14mmHg (group III, n=27). These patients were compared according to age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type and duration of surgery, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative pain score and length of hospital stay. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for postoperative pain.

Results

Demographic characteristics, mean age, gender, BMI and type of surgeries were statistically similar among the groups. The mean operation time was higher in group I than group II and group III but this was not statistically significant (P=0.810). The mean intraoperative bleeding volume was significantly higher in group I compared with group II and group III (P=0.030 and P=0.006). The mean length of postoperative hospital stays was statistically similar among the groups (P=0.849). The mean VAS score at 6h was significantly reduced in group I compared with group III (P=0.011). At 12h, the mean VAS score was significantly reduced in group I compared with group II and group III (P=0.009 and P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the mean VAS scores at 24h among three groups (P=0.920).

Conclusion

Lower insufflation pressures are associated with lower postoperative pain scores in the early postoperative period.

Postoperative shoulder pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy with deep neuromuscular blockade and low-pressure pneumoperitoneum: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative shoulder pain remains a significant problem after laparoscopy. Pneumoperitoneum with insufflation of carbon dioxide (CO2) is thought to be the most important cause. Reduction of pneumoperitoneum pressure may, however, compromise surgical visualisation. Recent studies indicate that the use of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) improves surgical conditions during a low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (8 mmHg).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (8 mmHg) and deep NMB (posttetanic count 0 to 1) compared with standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg) and moderate NMB (single bolus of rocuronium 0.3 mg kg with spontaneous recovery) would reduce the incidence of shoulder pain and improve recovery after laparoscopic hysterectomy.

DESIGN

A randomised, controlled, double-blinded study.

SETTING

Private hospital in Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-nine patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomisation to either deep NMB and 8 mmHg pneumoperitoneum (Group 8-Deep) or moderate NMB and 12 mmHg pneumoperitoneum (Group 12-Mod). Pain was assessed on a visual analogue scale (VAS) for 14 postoperative days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was the incidence of shoulder pain during 14 postoperative days. Secondary endpoints included area under curve VAS scores for shoulder, abdominal, incisional and overall pain during 4 and 14 postoperative days; opioid consumption; incidence of nausea and vomiting; antiemetic consumption; time to recovery of activities of daily living; length of hospital stay; and duration of surgery.

RESULTS

Shoulder pain occurred in 14 of 49 patients (28.6%) in Group 8-Deep compared with 30 of 50 (60%) patients in Group 12-Mod. Absolute risk reduction was 0.31 (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.48; P = 0.002). There were no differences in any secondary endpoints including area under the curve for VAS scores.

CONCLUSION

Deep NMB and low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (8 mmHg) reduced the incidence of shoulder pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy in comparison to moderate NMB and standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01722097.

[Impact of telmisartan on glomerular filtration in laparoscopic surgery. A double blinded randomised controlled study]

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has begun to replace a great number of procedures that were previously practiced using open or conventional techniques. This is due to the minimal invasion, small incisions, and short time recovery. However, it has come to knowledge, that the increase in intra-abdominal pressure due to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery causes cardiovascular, respiratory, endocrine, and renal alterations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the nephroprotective effect of telmisartan, an angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonist, on glomerular filtration in laparoscopic surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Analytical prospective, randomised, double-blind study was conducted on patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. They were randomised into 2 groups, with the treatment group receiving a single dose of 40mg telmisartan orally 2hours prior to surgery, and the placebo group.

RESULTS

There were 20 patients in each group (n=40), with a mean age of 32.65 years in the treatment group. Plasma creatinine did not show any significant change in the different time lapse in which blood samples were taken, but creatinine clearance at the end of surgery (196.415±56.507 vs. 150.1995±75.081; p=0.034), and at 2 h postoperative period (162.105±44.756 vs. 113.235±31.228; p≤0.001) was statistically significant, which supports an increase in renal function in the telmisartan group.

CONCLUSION

The use of telmisartan, an angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonist, offers renal protection during laparoscopic surgery.

Maintaining Optimal Surgical Conditions With Low Insufflation Pressures is Possible With Deep Neuromuscular Blockade During Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial

Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorption and increased intra-abdominal pressure can adversely affect perioperative physiology and postoperative recovery. Deep muscle relaxation is known to improve the surgical conditions during laparoscopic surgery. We aimed to compare the effects of deep and moderate neuromuscular block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, including intra-abdominal pressure. In this prospective, double-blind, parallel-group trial, 72 adult patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were randomized using an online randomization generator to achieve either moderate (1-2 train-of-four response, n = 36) or deep (1-2 post-tetanic count, n = 36) neuromuscular block by receiving a continuous infusion of rocuronium. Adjusted intra-abdominal pressure, which was titrated by a surgeon with maintaining the operative field during pneumoperitoneum, was recorded at 5-minute intervals. Perioperative hemodynamic parameters and postoperative outcomes were assessed. Six patients from the deep and 5 from the moderate neuromuscular block group were excluded, leaving 61 for analysis. The average adjusted IAP was lower in the deep compared to the moderate neuromuscular block group (9.3 vs 12 mm Hg, P < 0.001). The postoperative pain scores (P < 0.001) and incidence of postoperative shoulder tip pain were lower, whereas gas passing time (P = 0.002) and sips of water time (P = 0.005) were shorter in the deep neuromuscular block than in the moderate neuromuscular block group. Deep neuromuscular blocking showed several benefits compared to conventional moderate neuromuscular block, including a greater intra-abdominal pressure lowering effect, whereas surgical conditions are maintained, less severe postoperative pain and faster bowel function recovery.

Sugammadex: Role in current anaesthetic practice and its safety benefits for patients

Sugammadex has revolutionized anaesthetic management of reversal of neuromuscular block (NMB) by way of its unique mechanism of action encapsulating the amino steroid neuromuscular blocking drugs rocuronium and vecuronium. The cholinesterase inhibitors have significant pharmacological and clinical limitations whereas sugammadex allows predictable, safe and rapid reversal from any depth of blockade. The financial cost of sugammadex is significant. Many hospitals in the United Kingdom use clinical guidelines to direct best use of sugammadex in their institutions. Auditing the use of sugammadex provides useful information on which patients are benefiting from sugammadex. The clinical benefits of sugammadex are well understood. No patient should now be subjected to the danger of post-operative residual curarization. Versatility in the ability to reverse NMB has brought opportunities to the anaesthetist in the management of rapid sequence induction using high dose rocuronium with the knowledge that safe reversal of NMB is now possible in the unlikely event of a “can’t intubate can’t ventilate” situation. Do we still need suxamethonium to be available? The nature of surgery continues to evolve with ever-increasing enthusiasm for minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques. There is evidence to support using a deeper level of NMB to improve the working space and operating conditions in laparoscopic surgery. It is now possible to maintain a deep level of NMB right up until the end of surgery with no concerns about the ability to effect safe reversal of NMB. Vigilance about the possibility of allergic sensitivity to sugammadex needs to be maintained. The increased usage of rocuronium has the potential for rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis. Conversely, there is a potential role for sugammadex in the treatment of rocuronium anaphylaxis. Clinicians who have used sugammadex are struck with the quality of recovery seen in their patients. It is important that the economic implications of the use of sugammadex are fully understood. This article considers the current role of sugammadex in clinical practice outside of routine reversal of NMB and discusses how the addition of sugammadex to the anaesthetic armamentarium brings safety benefits for patients.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialities. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera e.g. the bowel or bladder, or to vasculature e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels. Minor complications can also occur, such as postoperative wound infection, subcutaneous emphysema, and extraperitoneal insufflation. There is no clear consensus as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

This updated review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. In addition, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycINFO were searched through to September 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which one laparoscopic entry technique was compared with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 46 RCTs including three multi-arm trials (7389 participants) and evaluated 13 laparoscopic entry techniques. Overall there was no evidence of advantage using any single technique for preventing major vascular or visceral complications. The evidence was generally of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Open-entry versus closed-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). There was a lower risk of failed entry in the open-entry group (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.63, n = 665, two RCTs, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 31 patients in the closed-entry group will have failed entry compared to between 1 to 20 patients in the open-entry group. No events were reported in any of the studies for mortality, gas embolism or solid organ injury. Direct trocar versus Veress needle entry There was a lower risk of vascular injury in the direct trocar group (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.66, five RCTs, n = 1522, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence) and failed entry (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30, seven RCTs, n = 3104; I ²= 0%; moderate quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 8 patients in the Veress needle group will experience vascular injury compared to between 0 to 5 patients in the direct trocar group; and that 64 patients in the Veress needle group will experience failed entry compared to between 10 to 20 patients in the direct trocar group. The vascular injury significance is sensitive to choice of statistical analysis and may be unreliable. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for visceral (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.24, four RCTs, n = 1438, I(2) = 49%; very low quality evidence) or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.16, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.53, two RCTs, n = 998, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence). No events were recorded for mortality or gas embolism. Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34, one RCT, n = 194; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Direct vision entry versus open-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50, two RCTs, n = 392; low quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67, one RCT, n = 60, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09, one RCT, n = 60; low quality evidence). Vascular injury was reported, however no events occurred. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocars There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = n/a; low quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91, one RCT, n = 244; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Comparisons of other laparoscopic entry techniquesThere was a higher risk of failed entry in the group in which the abdominal wall was lifted before Veress needle insertion than in the not-lifted group (Peto OR 4.44, 95% CI 2.16 to 9.13, one RCT, n = 150; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of visceral injury or extraperitoneal insufflation. The studies had small numbers and excluded many patients with previous abdominal surgery, and women with a raised body mass index. These patients may have unusually high complication rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one laparoscopic entry technique over another.An open-entry technique is associated with a reduction in failed entry when compared to a closed-entry technique, with no evidence of a difference in the incidence of visceral or vascular injury.An advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry was noted for failed entry and vascular injury. The evidence was generally of very low quality with small numbers of participants in most studies; our findings should be interpreted with caution.

The Intraocular Pressure under Deep versus Moderate Neuromuscular Blockade during Low-Pressure Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in a Randomized Trial

Background

This study aimed to determine whether continuous deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) improves the surgical conditions and facilitates robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) under low intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) to attenuate the increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) during CO₂ pneumoperitoneum in the steep Trendelenburg (ST) position.

Methods

Sixty-seven patients undergoing RALRP were randomly assigned to a moderate NMB group (Group M), including patients who received atracurium infusion until the end of the ST position, maintaining a train of four count of 1–2; and the deep NMB group (Group D), including patients who received rocuronium infusion, maintaining a post-tetanic count of 1–2. IOP was measured in all patients at nine separate time points. All RALRPs were performed by one surgeon, who rated the overall and worst surgical conditions at the end of the ST position.

Results

The highest IOP value was observed at T4 (60 min after the ST position) in both Group M (23.3 ± 2.7 mmHg) and Group D (19.8 ± 2.1 mmHg). RALRP was accomplished at an IAP of 8 mmHg in 88% Group D patients and 25% Group M patients. The overall surgical condition grade was 4.0 (3.0–5.0) in Group D and 3.0 (2.0–5.0) in Group M (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The current study demonstrated that continuous deep NMB may improve surgical conditions and facilitate RALRP at a low IAP, resulting in significant attenuation of the increase on IOP. Moreover, low-pressure pneumoperitoneum, facilitated by deep NMB still provided acceptable surgical conditions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02109133

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.

Optimising abdominal space with deep neuromuscular blockade in gynaecologic laparoscopy--a randomised, blinded crossover study

BACKGROUND

Insufflation of the abdomen during laparoscopy improves surgical space, but may cause post-operative shoulder pain. The incidence of shoulder pain is reduced using a lower insufflation pressure, but this may, however, compromise the surgical space. We aimed at investigating whether deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) would enlarge surgical space, measured as the distance from the sacral promontory to the trocar in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopy.

METHODS

Fourteen patients were randomised in an assessor-blinded crossover design. The distance from the sacral promontory to the trocar was measured during deep NMB and without NMB at pneumoperitoneum 8 and 12 mmHg both. Additionally, we assessed surgical conditions while suturing the abdominal fascia using a 4-point subjective rating scale. Deep NMB was established with rocuronium and reversed with sugammadex.

RESULTS

At 12 mmHg pneumoperitoneum, deep NMB improved surgical space with a mean of 0.33 cm (95% confidence interval 0.07-0.59) (P=0.01, paired t-test) compared with no NMB. At 8 mmHg pneumoperitoneum deep NMB improved surgical space with a mean of 0.3 cm (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.54) (P=0.005) compared with no NMB. Deep NMB resulted in significantly better ratings of surgical conditions during suturing of the fascia (P=0.03, Mann-Whitney U-test).

CONCLUSION

Deep NMB enlarged surgical space measured as the distance from the sacral promontory to the trocar. The enlargement, however, was minor and the clinical significance is unknown. Moreover, deep NMB improved surgical conditions when suturing the abdominal fascia.

A prospective randomized trial of postoperative pain following different insufflation pressures during gynecologic laparoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of different intra-abdominal pressure values on visceral pain following gynecologic laparoscopic surgery in the Trendelenburg position.

STUDY DESIGN

This randomized, controlled prospective trial was conducted at a tertiary education hospital and included 150 patients who underwent gynecologic laparoscopy with different abdominal insufflation pressures. There were 54 patients in the 8 mmHg low pressure group (LPG), 45 in the 12 mmHg standard pressure group (SPG), and 51 in the 15 mmHg high pressure group (HPG). We assessed mean age, body mass index (BMI), duration of surgery, analgesic consumption, length of hospital stay, amount of CO2 expended and volume of hemorrhage. Visceral pain and referred visceral pain were assessed 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively using a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age, BMI, analgesic consumption or length of hospital stay among groups. The mean operative time and total CO2 expended during surgery were higher in the LPG compared with the SPG and HPG. The mean intensity of postoperative pain assessed by the VAS score at 6 and 12 h was less in the LPG than in the SPG and HPG and was reduced significantly at 12 h. VAS scores at 24 h in the LPG and SPG were lower than in the HPG.

CONCLUSION

Pain is reduced by low insufflation pressure compared with standard and high insufflation pressure following gynecologic laparoscopic surgery in the Trendelenburg position. However, low insufflation pressure may result in longer operation times and increased hemorrhage.

Effect of pneumoperitoneum on the recovery from intense neuromuscular blockade by rocuronium in healthy patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the effect of pneumoperitoneum on the recovery from intense neuromuscular blockade by rocuronium in healthy patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Thirty adult patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery were studied. Anesthesia was induced with 1.5 mg/kg of propofol, 12 ug/kg of alfentanil and 0.6 mg/kg of rocuronium and maintained with 2 vol% of sevoflurane and 0.05-0.2 µg/kg/min remifentanil. The neuromuscular relaxation was monitored by Train-of-Four (TOF) and post-tetanic count (PTC). Additional rocuronium of 0.2 mg/kg was administered for deep neuromuscular blockade at 30 min after pneumoperitoneum. Before (PPpre) and 30 min after pneumoperitoneum (PPpost), PTC was measured at 6 min intervals. The relationship between PTC and the time interval to reappearance of T1 response was observed.

RESULTS

The mean ± SD of the intervals between the detection of 4 counts of the PTC and the first response to TOF stimulation was 13.0 ± 1.1 min and 16.4 ± 6.3 min PPpre and PPpost, respectively (P = 0.20). There were significant negative relationships between PTC observed and the time interval to reappearance of T1 response (adjusted R(2) = 0.869, P < 0.001 for PPpre data, and adjusted R(2) = 0.561, P < 0.001 for PPpost data). Comparing the difference of regression equation between PPpre and PPpost data using a parallelism test, there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.193).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that PP with intra-abdominal pressure at the level of 13-14 mmHg did not affect the recovery from intense neuromuscular blockade by rocuronium in healthy patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

Pain relief from combined wound and intraperitoneal local anesthesia for patients who undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become the treatment of choice for gallbladder lesions, but it is not a pain-free procedure. This study explored the pain relief provided by combined wound and intraperitoneal local anesthetic use for patients who are undergoing LC.

Methods

Two-hundred and twenty consecutive patients undergoing LC were categorized into 1 of the following 4 groups: local wound anesthetic after LC either with an intraperitoneal local anesthetic (W + P) (group 1) or without an intraperitoneal local anesthetic (W + NP) (group 2), or no local wound anesthetic after LC either with intraperitoneal local anesthetic (NW + P) (group 3) or without an intraperitoneal local anesthetic (NW + NP) (group 4). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess postoperative pain. The amount of analgesic used and the duration of hospital stay were also recorded.

Results

The VAS was significantly lower immediately after LC for the W + P group than for the NW + NP group (5 vs. 6; p = 0.012). Patients in the W + P group received a lower total amount of meperidine during their hospital stay. They also had the shortest hospital stay after LC, compared to the patients in the other groups.

Conclusion

Combined wound and intraperitoneal local anesthetic use after LC significantly decreased the immediate postoperative pain and may explain the reduced use of meperidine and earlier discharge of patients so treated.

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.

Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The feasibility and safety of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy remain unclear.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing low-pressure with standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1,263 patients were included. Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum was associated with significantly decreased postoperative pain. The requirement for increased pressure was significantly greater in the low-pressure group (risk ratio = 6.16; P < .001). Operative time was similar, with only a slight statistical significance (weighted mean difference = 2.07; P < .001). Length of hospital stay was shorter in the low-pressure group (weighted mean difference = -.27; P = .01). No significant differences were found in surgical complications or conversion to open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is feasible and safe and results in reduced postoperative pain and near-equal operative time compared with standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum. More studies are required to investigate the potential benefits of the reduced length of hospital stay.