Comparison of two entry methods for laparoscopic port entry: technical point of view

Comparison of Optical Trocar Access Versus Veress Needle Insertion Technique for Peritoneal Entry in Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Nearly half of all complications in laparoscopic surgery occur at the intraperitoneal access. We compared direct optical entry (DOE) with Veress needle entry (VNE) in terms of abdominal entry time and entry-associated complications in patients who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN).

METHODS

Between June 2010 and July 2023, data from 813 patients who underwent LDN were analyzed. Age, male-to-female ratio, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index, operation side, previous abdominal surgery, abdominal entry technique, abdominal entry time, entry-associated complications, conversion to different abdominal entry techniques, and conversion to open surgery were evaluated.

RESULTS

DOE and VNE were performed on 433 and 281 patients, respectively. Age (48.89 ± 12.11 vs 47.59 ± 11.34 years), male-to-female ratio (44.8% vs 40.9% males and 55.2% vs 59.1% females), ASA score (2 vs 2 median ASA score), body mass index (26.72 ± 6.11 vs 27.07 ± 5.83 kg/m2), and operation side (63.0% vs 61.3% left nephrectomy) were not statistically significant differences between the DOE and VNE groups (P > .05). However, abdominal entry time was significantly reduced in the DOE group compared with the VNE group (26.8 ± 20.8 vs 49.5 ± 34.1 seconds, P = .007, respectively). Entry-associated complications were observed in 8 (1.12%) patients. No major (grades 3-5) complications were observed. There were no statistically significant differences in overall (0.6% vs 1.7%, P = .291), grade 1, and grade 2 complication rates between the DOE and VNE groups (0.4% vs 1.4%, P = .366; 0.2% vs 0.3%, P = .714, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

DOE and VNE are not foolproof. DOE is a safe, feasible, and faster technique in patients who underwent LDN.

Evaluation of Open (Hasson's) and Closed (Veress) Technique of Intraperitoneal Access for Creation of Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery

Background The creation of pneumoperitoneum is the first step in any laparoscopic surgery. There are various methods of creating pneumoperitoneum which can be divided into open or closed methods. The closed method involves the blind insertion of the Veress needle into the peritoneal cavity. The open technique involves making an incision and then dissecting the fascia to the peritoneal cavity to introduce the cannula under direct vision. This study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of open (Hasson's) and closed (Veress) techniques of intraperitoneal access for the creation of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. Material and methods The study was conducted in the Department of General Surgery, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. This was a prospective observational study and a total of 100 patients of laparoscopic surgeries fulfilling inclusion criteria were included in the study - 50 patients in group A undergoing the open method of creating pneumoperitoneum and 50 patients in group B undergoing the closed method of creating pneumoperitoneum were evaluated for the study period of 18 months from October 2020 through June 2022. Results The mean time to create pneumoperitoneum was 5.3 ± 1.41 minutes in the open method and 6.21 ± 1.36 minutes in the closed method. The mean time for umbilical port closure in our study was 7.33 ± 1.66 in the open group and 8.86 ± 2.19 in the closed group. In our study, there was no vascular or visceral injury noted in either of the methods used for the creation of pneumoperitoneum. Post-operative complications were almost equal in both the groups. Conclusions Both open and closed methods of intraperitoneal access are safe and effective for the creation of pneumoperitoneum during abdominal laparoscopy. The open method of creating pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery is a quicker method for the creation of pneumoperitoneum as compared to the closed method of intraperitoneal access.

A Study of the Safety and Morbidity Profile of Closed versus Open Technique of Laparoscopic Primary Peritoneal Access Port in Patients Undergoing Routine Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Northeastern India

Introduction. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard operation for gallstone disease. Primary port placement into the abdomen is a blind procedure and is challenging with chances of unforeseen complications. The complication rate has remained the same during the past 25 years. Both closed/Veress and open/Hasson’s techniques are commonly employed and have their typical indications for use. Materials and Methods. This prospective study was carried out in the Department of General Surgery, North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences (NEIGRIHMS), Shillong, from January 2014 to January 2016, with the aim to compare the safety profile of closed/Veress and open/Hasson’s methods of access to the abdomen during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The study had 400 eligible cases undergoing LC who were randomly allotted into 2 groups with 200 cases each: group A: closed/Veress needle method and group B: open/Hasson’s method. Results. Closed/Veress and open/Hasson’s method of establishing pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is equally safe in terms of major complications. The closed/Veress method gives faster access to the abdomen as compared to the open method (5.62 ± 2.23 minutes and 7.18 ± 2.52 minutes, respectively, $p$ value <0.0001). The open/Hasson’s method is associated with more primary port site complications (9/200 vs. 0/200, $p$ value 0.0036) and troublesome intraoperative gas leaks (39/200 vs. 2/200, $p$ value <0.0001). The open technique for primary peritoneal access port for laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not impart any additional benefits in terms of safety and morbidity profile in patients undergoing LC. Conclusion. The closed/Veress method of establishing pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is equally safe in terms of major complications and gives quicker access to the abdomen as compared to the open method.

Comparison of Two Entry Methods and Their Cosmetic Outcomes in Creating Pneumoperitoneum: A Prospective Observational Study

Background  The main challenge in laparoscopic surgery is creating pneumoperitoneum using various surgical techniques. Every procedure has its own advocates. The aim of this study was to determine the cosmetic outcomes of the two of the major surgical techniques (open—Hasson technique versus closed—Veress technique) used in laparoscopic surgery.

Methods  This was a prospective, observational, comparative study conducted from October 2017 to September 2018 in 132 patients, who presented to our center and fulfilled our selection criteria. For all the patients, pneumoperitoneum was performed using either open (Hasson) or closed technique (Veress). A database was created for all the patients and the technique dependent cosmetic outcomes were assessed and reported.

Results  There were a total of 66 patients in each group (open and closed). The mean age of the open group was 51.56±11.42 years and closed group was 54.36±14.78 years, respectively. The major comorbidities found in both the groups were diabetes mellitus (6/66, group A; 7/66, group B) and hypertension (3/66, group A; 4/66, group B). In open group, umbilical (58/66, p =0.001) and in closed group infraumbilical (35/66, p =0.001) were the most commonly used incisions.

Conclusion  As benefits outweigh the risks, the better cosmetic outcomes were observed in patients underwent closed technique over open technique ( p <0.05).

Prospective Observational Study of Comparison Between Direct and High-Pressure Primary Trocar Entry in Gynaecological Laparoscopy in Teaching Hospital

Background

Laparoscopic port entry is crucial and vital step in any laparoscopic surgery. As laparoscopy is widely used, complications related to it are also increasing which are not seen in conventional laparotomy.

Aim

The present study was undertaken to compare the ease of primary trocar entry after pneumoperitoneum at 20 mmHg pressure and direct trocar entry without pneumoperitoneum.

Methods

Total 100 nulliparous patients who presented for elective gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery were enrolled for the study. In operating theatre, randomization of patients was done using a sealed envelope technique which divides patients into two equal groups and assigned as either low-pressure group or high-pressure group. Verres needle insertion and trocar entry was done by fellowship trainee in laparoscopy assisted by senior laparoscopy surgeon.

Result

In high-pressure group we had trocar entry in first attempt in 80% of patient, second attempt in 20% where as in direct trocar entry group required first attempt in 88%, second attempt in 10% and third attempt in 2%. Time taken for trocar entry between two groups was significantly different requiring 4.42 ± 0.55 min for high pressure and 1.2 ± 0.28 min for direct trocar entry.

Conclusion

The study concluded that high-pressure trocar entry requires more time; require less attempts, easier and surgeon will be more comfortable in repeating the same technique than direct trocar entry.

A Comparison of Times Taken for the Placement of the First Portal and Complication Rates between the Veress Needle Technique and the Modified Hasson Technique in Canine Ovariectomy Laparoscopic Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly being used in veterinary medicine. Laparoscopic procedures have several advantages compared with open surgery. These include the magnification of the field of surgery, reduced post-surgical pain and associated stress, reduced post-operative infection rates, and decreased hospitalization time. The establishment of a pneumoperitoneum is a critical step; however, this procedure can prolong the operation time, and most of the complications associated with laparoscopic surgery have been attributed to the insertion of devices into the abdominal cavity. Two main techniques have been employed to create pneumoperitoneum: the closed-entry method using the Veress needle and the open Hasson technique. The first portal is necessary to start insufflation and, subsequently, to realize the operative channel to insert the laparoscopic instruments into the abdomen. Many authors have compared the time necessary to create the first portal using different techniques in human medicine, but studies on this topic in veterinary medicine are lacking. In the veterinary medicine literature, complications associated with the creation of a pneumoperitoneum and the placement of ports include spleen, bowel, or bladder injuries; pneumothorax; and subcutaneous emphysema. The aim of the present study was to compare the times required for the placement of the first portal and the creation of pneumoperitoneum, and the rates of intraoperative complications using the Veress needle technique (VNT) and the open modified Hasson technique (MHT). The sample population comprised 30 female dogs who underwent laparoscopic ovariectomies. The dogs were randomly organized into two groups and two different entry techniques were used: Veress needle (VNT = group A) and the modified Hasson technique (MHT = group B). Complications related to abdominal entry were classified as major, in cases of organ perforation, and minor, in cases of subcutaneous emphysema and gas leakage. The VNT and MHT required 374.0 s and 242.9 s, respectively, for the placement of the first portal and for establishing pneumoperitoneum (p < 0.05). Their major complications rates were 20% and 0%, respectively (p < 0.05). Their minor complications rates were 20% and 35%, respectively (p < 0.05). No surgical procedures required laparotomy. The MHT was associated with a lower major complication rate and required less time to create the first portal, compared with the Veress needle technique.

Complications of Veress Needle Versus Open Technique in Abdominal Surgeries

Introduction

In any laparoscopic procedure, the first and most important step is abdominal entry. This is followed by the creation of pneumoperitoneum, which is essential for lifting the abdominal wall off of the internal organs and visualizing the entered space. However, the entry and establishment of pneumoperitoneum are not without risks and complications, the most serious of which include vascular injuries and bowel perforations in all the different techniques used. The most commonly used techniques for abdominal entry are the closed (Veress) and open (Hasson) techniques, the choice of which varies according to the surgeon’s preference and other regional and local factors.

Aim

To compare the outcomes between the open technique and the Veress needle for accessing the peritoneum during laparoscopic surgery.

Methodology

This was a retrospective cohort study that aimed to compare the outcomes between the Veress needle and the open technique for entering the peritoneum in laparoscopic surgeries. A chart review was used as an instrument to collect data. The study was conducted in King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All patients who underwent abdominal laparoscopic surgery from 2006 to 2016 were included.

Results

We analyzed 365 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominal surgery. The mean age of the patients was 32.6 years. The most common postoperative complication occurring during the admission period was abdominal pain (40.5%). Postoperative complications during admission were significantly associated with the type of needle used (χ2=10.641; p=0.001).

Conclusion

The type of technique used for entry and peritoneal access was associated with the occurrence of postoperative complications in abdominal surgeries. Thus, the choice of open or Veress technique for peritoneal access should be individualized based on factors such as patient sex, clinical diagnosis, and most importantly, the surgeons’ experience and preference.

Palmer's test usefulness in the correct positioning of the Veress needle and the reduction of complications during laparoscopic access maneuvers

AIM

Abdominal cavity access accounts for 50% of complications during laparoscopic surgery. Different safety maneuvers have been used to try to diminish these. Our study aims to establish the usefulness of Palmer's test in the correct positioning of the Veress needle and the reduction of complications during laparoscopic access maneuvers, when used in addition to the determination of intraabdominal pressure.

METHODS

Prospective observational analytic multi-centered cohort study with 370 patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy between July 2014 and November 2019, comparing the additional use of Palmer's test in 185 patients (Palmer-Test-Yes, PTY), with intraabdominal pressure determination alone in 185 patients (Palmer-Test-No, PTN).

RESULTS

Intergroup homogeneity was described for the basic characteristics of both population samples, except for mean age and percentage of previous laparotomy. A total of 19 complications were recorded, 10 in PTY and 9 in PTN, with no significant differences (P = 0.814). No differences were found in the analysis of these complications, except for the rate of conversion to laparotomy, which occurred four times in the PTY group and none in PTN (P = 0.044). Furthermore, no differences were found once fixed for the history of previous laparotomy (P = 514.), nor for the percentage of successful access after the first attempt between both groups (P = 0.753).

CONCLUSION

Palmer's test, when used in addition to intraabdominal pressure determination, has not shown to be effective in preventing failed access to abdominal cavity or reducing complications associated with access maneuvers with the Veress needle. Hence, its systematic use is not justified, since it could generate a sense of false security.

Preperitoneal insufflation pressure of the abdominal wall in a porcine model

BACKGROUND

Most complications and adverse events during laparoscopic surgery occur during initial entry into the peritoneal cavity. Among them, preperitoneal insufflation occurs when the insufflation needle is incorrectly placed, and the abdominal wall is insufflated. The objective of this study was to find a range for static pressure which is low enough to allow placement of a Veress needle into the peritoneal space without causing preperitoneal insufflation, yet high enough to separate abdominal viscera from the parietal peritoneum.

METHODS

A pressure test was performed on twelve fresh porcine carcasses to determine the minimum preperitoneal insufflation pressure and the minimum initial peritoneal cavity insufflation pressure. Each porcine model had five needle placement categories. One category tested the initial peritoneal cavity insufflation pressure beneath the umbilicus. The four remaining categories tested the preperitoneal insufflation pressure at four different anatomical locations on the abdomen that can be used for initial entry. The minimum initial insufflation pressures from each carcass were then compared to the preperitoneal insufflation pressures to obtain an optimal range for initial insufflation.

RESULTS

Increasing the insufflation pressure increased the probability of preperitoneal insufflation. Also, there was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the initial peritoneal cavity insufflation pressures (8.83 ± 4.19 mmHg) and the lowest preperitoneal pressures (32.54 ± 7.84 mmHg) (mean ± SD).

CONCLUSION

Pressures greater than 10 mmHg resulted in initial cavity insufflation and pressures greater than 20 mmHg resulted in preperitoneal insufflation in porcine models. By knowing the minimum pressure required to separate the layers of the abdominal wall, the risk of preperitoneal insufflation can be mitigated while obtaining safe and efficient entry into the peritoneal cavity. The findings in this research are not a guideline for trocar or Veress needle placement, but instead reveal preliminary data which may lead to more studies, technology, etc.

Iatrogenic bladder injury from port insertion during laparoscopic appendicectomy

A 26-year-old man underwent laparoscopic appendicectomy for acute appendicitis that was carried out uneventfully after initial urethral catheterisation to empty the bladder. Postoperatively, he developed oliguria associated with high drain output and elevated drain fluid creatinine. A contrast-enhanced computed tomography urography scan showed a small amount of contrast in the intraperitoneal space. A diagnostic laparoscopy performed for a suspected bladder injury revealed that the drain (inserted via the suprapubic port) had traversed the bladder. The drain was removed, and the bladder defects were repaired. The catheter was removed 2 weeks later uneventfully. It is important to recognise and avoid the urinary bladder during suprapubic port insertion during laparoscopic appendicectomy. This complication can be minimised via initial bladder decompression and introduction of the suprapubic port lateral to the umbilical ligaments. A high index of suspicion is required to diagnose a small bladder injury.

Method for safe Verres needle entry at the umbilicus, with modification for first trocar entry to reduce the complication rate of first entry

Background

Initial intraperitoneal access and first trocar entry are responsible for nearly half of all complications of laparoscopic surgery. The purpose of this article is to detail our method of initial intraperitoneal access with Veress needle and first trocar at the umbilicus used over the past 28 years.

Patients and Methods

Since 1990, a single surgeon performed laparoscopic surgery in 7600 patients. From 1992 onward, 6975 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. On assessment, 739 cases (10.6%) were found unsuitable for Veress needle entry at the umbilicus. The remaining, 6236, patients form the study group for this article. Every patient was operated in the identical, repetitive manner. Every detail was considered important. The method of the first trocar entry is modified to minimise complications of this manoeuvre.

Results

The average time from cleaning umbilicus again to Veress needle tip in peritoneum was 1 min 40 s (25 s-7 min). Out of the 4228 patients in whom no adhesions were observed at first trocar entry (Group 1), the Veress needle insertion was successful at first attempt in 3829 (90.5%) patients, at second attempt in 322 (7.6%) and at third attempt in 30 (0.7%). In the 2008 patients with significant adhesions observed after first trocar entry (Group 2), successful insertion of the Veress needle was achieved at first attempt in 1700 (84.6%) patients, at second attempt in 182 (9%) and at third attempt in 19 (0.9%). In this group, there was one bowel injury (0.05%) and 3 (0.15%) minor vascular injuries. There was no mortality in either group. In the overall series, the Veress needle was successfully introduced in 6082 of the 6236 patients (97.5%) and 154 patients (2.4%) failed Veress needle entry. The incidence of bowel injury in the series was 0.016% and that of minor vascular injuries was 0.048%.

Conclusions

Initial intraperitoneal access must be performed with utmost caution after adequate training and proctorship. This paper stresses with meticulous attention to every detail, this safe, method of initial intraperitoneal access leads to low complication rates.

Direct trocar insertion without previous pneumoperitoneum versus insertion after insufflation with Veress needle in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a prospective cohort study

The aim of this study was to determine whether direct trocar entry without prior pneumoperitoneum at umbilical level (DTI) can be a safe alternative to access the abdominal cavity in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. We present a prospective observational analytical study of cohorts, comparing DTI with umbilical entry with trocar after previous insufflation with a Veress needle at umbilical level (V). The study period was performed from June 2013 to April 2016; data was collected on 600 patients who underwent gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in the risk of suffering a complication during the access manoeuvres between DTI (6.49%) and V (7.39%), OR 0.89 (95% CI: 0.42-1.81). The duration of the access manoeuvres was 69 s in DTI and 193 s in V (p < .001). The percentage of patients in whom two or more access attempts were performed was lower in DTI (7.8%) than in V (12.3%) (p > .05). We concluded that DTI is at least as safe as V, regarding the risk of suffering complications arising from access into the abdominal cavity. DTI has advantages with regard to V, such as: the shorter duration of access manoeuvres or the lesser number of unsuccessful entry or insufflation attempts. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? There are few international publications comparing DTI and V. When we conducted a search in PubMed for the terms 'Veress needle and direct trocar insertion', 51 publications were obtained. When we increased the restriction and added the terms 'laparoscopic entry and laparoscopy complications', 27 publications were obtained; thus, the uniqueness of our study. What do the results of this study add? We present a 3-year observational prospective study of cohorts that included 600 patients. The aim of this study was to determine that in laparoscopic gynaecological surgery, DTI is an access method to the abdominal cavity at least as safe as V, with respect to the risk of complications. On the other hand, DTI has some advantages such as the shorter duration of access manoeuvres or the lower number of failed entry attempts. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Given the limited number of publications that compared both techniques, our study indicates that DTI can be a safe alternative for access to abdominal cavity in gynaecological surgery, compared to the traditional V.

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

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, diverse approaches have been existed for laparoscopic procedures. The most common laparoscopic entry methods included close and direct entry laparoscopy and open (Hasson) laparoscopy. There is no evidence regarding the superiority in safety and initial speed for the use of open and optical laparoscopic entry. Therefore, the sight of current study was to evaluate comparative survey of two methods of laparoscopic trocar insertion (Hasson and VisiportTM) in terms of speed and complications in urologic surgery.

METHODS

This expertized base clinical trial study was conducted on 100 patients who underwent urological laparoscopy in Alzahra Hospital, Isfahan, Iran. These patients were randomly divided to two groups (n = 50). One group underwent open laparoscopy and another group Visiport optical trocar. Speed and Complications of urologic surgery was extracted from medical records. Independent T test was used for doing of analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients in Hasson and Visiport laparoscopic group was 41.4 ± 11.2 and 41.6 ± 15 years old, respectively (p = 0.91). The mean time for initial trocar placement in patients who underwent Visiport trocar system and Hasson laparoscopic technique was 37.7 ± 15.59 and 95.4 ± 31.75 seconds. There was gratifying difference between two techniques of laparoscopic trocar insertion (Hasson and Visiport) in terms of speed (p = 0.000). In addition, complications were observed in 8% of patients who underwent Visiport trocar system. However, no complications were observed in Hasson laparoscopy group.

CONCLUSION

Visiport optical trocar technique is faster for initial trocar placement than open laparoscopy. However it is associated with complications compared to open laparoscopy. Therefore, there is evidence of benefit in terms of speed for initial trocar placement and harm based on complications in Visiport trocar system.

Influence of 2 Veress needles and 4 insertion sites on Veress needle penetration depth: A comparative study in cadaveric dogs

Objective

To evaluate the penetration depth (VNPD) of 2 disposable Veress needles (VN) at 4 insertion sites in the abdomen.

Study design

Descriptive study.

Sample population

Canine cadavers (n = 22, 6 for confirmation of the test methods and 16 for the comparative study).

Methods

Two disposable VN (VN A and VN B) were inserted at 4 sites (9th intercostal space [ICS] and preumbilical, paraumbilical, and subumbilical sites) in dorsally recumbent dogs by using a hand‐cranked jig. The VNPD was measured as the distance traveled by the VN between the subcutaneous tissue and the perforation of the peritoneum on the basis of audible clicks and visible feedback from the VN. The effects of the VN type and insertion site on the VNPD were analyzed by using a linear mixed‐effects model.

Results

VNPD varied between insertion sites (P =  .01) and VN (P < .01). The VNPD was less at the 9th ICS than at the preumbilical, paraumbilical, and subumbilical sites. The maximal magnitude of change was 7.4 mm. Veress needle B (with a low spring rate, lower forces, and a back‐cut bevel design) penetrated farther than VN A (with a high spring rate, high forces, and a lancet‐type bevel) at 3 of 4 insertion sites. The maximal magnitude of change was 6.8 mm.

Conclusion

Veress needle penetration depth varied between VN designs but was the least at the 9th ICS in canine cadavers.

Clinical significance

Insertion of a VN at the 9th ICS is recommended to minimize its penetration into the abdomen. Associations between VNPD and mechanical factors, such as the sharpness and spring rate of VN, warrant additional research.

Multicenter comprehensive methodological and technical analysis of 832 pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) interventions performed in 349 patients for peritoneal carcinomatosis treatment: An international survey study

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new drug delivery method offered in selected patients suffering from non-resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). As reported experience is still limited, we conducted a survey among active PIPAC centers aiming to report their technical approach and clinical findings.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to active PIPAC centers worldwide. The questionnaire consisted of 34 closed questions and was conducted over a period of 3 months beginning in March 2017.

RESULTS

Nine out of 15 contacted centers completed the questionnaire totaling 832 PIPAC procedures in 349 patients. Most common indications for PIPAC were PC from gastric, ovarian and colorectal origin. The mean time between each PIPAC procedure was 6-8 weeks. Seven of nine (77.8%) centers evaluate the PCI at every PIPAC procedure. At least four tissue samples for histopathology analysis were retrieved in 5 (55.6%). All centers (100%) use the same chemotherapy protocol: oxaliplatin at a dosage of 92mg/m² for PC of colorectal origin and a combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin at a dosage of 7.5mg/m² and 1.5mg/m², respectively, for other types of PC. Eight centers (88.9%) perform routine radiological evaluation before first PIPAC and after third PIPAC.

CONCLUSION

These data confirm that PIPAC procedures are homogeneously performed in established centers. Standardization of the procedure will facilitate future international multicenter prospective clinical trials.

Open Versus Closed Laparoscopy: Yet an Unresolved Controversy

INTRODUCTION

Safe placement of the Verres needle or the primary trocar for establishment of pneumoperitoneum is the most critical step in laparoscopic procedure as it is associated with bowel, bladder and life threatening vascular injuries and embolism. In the last few decades many techniques and guidelines have been introduced to eliminate complications in creation of pneumoperitoneum. Classical closed technique (Verres needle) and the open classic technique (Hasson) are the most commonly used techniques for creation of pneumoperitoneum.

AIM

To compare the rate of occurrence and nature of complications in open and closed laparoscopy during establishment of pneumoperitoneum in different surgical and gynaecological procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a comparative study conducted at three hospitals in Dibrugarh district, Assam, India from January 2012 to December 2014. Total 3000 cases were included in the study with 1500 cases of open laparoscopy and 1500 cases of closed laparoscopy. Complications occurring in both the groups were compared by using Fisher's-exact test.

RESULTS

In closed laparoscopy group minor complications occurred in 80 (5.33%) and major complications in 20 (1.33%) cases. In open laparoscopy group minor complications were observed in 60 (4%) and major complications in 2 (0.13%). The p-value of the difference between the two groups for minor complications was 0.0834 and for major complications was 0.0001(significant).

CONCLUSION

Open laparoscopy was seen to be better than closed laparoscopy in terms of not only the rate of occurrence of complications but also the nature and severity of the complications. This study is clinically relevant as there is no consensus for a particular method of safe entry in to the peritoneal cavity warranting the need for more research. Open technique can be performed in all cases irrespective of previous operative scar, suspected intra peritoneal adhesions or obesity. Favourable outcome may be achieved in closed technique in cases of normal BMI, absence of postoperative scar in the abdomen, absence of abdominal and genital tuberculosis and pelvic inflammatory disease.

Endoscopic Ovariectomy of Exotic Mammals Using a Three-Port Approach

Laparoscopic ovariectomy has been advocated as the preferred sterilization method for dogs for some time. The same arguments and benefits can be extended for many zoologic mammals, including carnivores, suids, primates, lagomorphs, and large rodents. This article summarizes the benefits, equipment options, surgical technique, recovery, and complications associated with this sterilization procedure.

Meta-analysis and systematic review of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for elective incisional hernia

CONTEXT

The utility of laparoscopic repair in the treatment of incisional hernia repair is still contentious.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of RCTs investigating the surgical and postsurgical outcomes of elective incisional hernia by open versus laparoscopic method.

DATA SOURCES

A search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published between January 1993 and September 2013 was performed using medical subject headings (MESH) "hernia," "incisional," "abdominal," "randomized/randomised controlled trial," "abdominal wall hernia," "laparoscopic repair," "open repair", "human" and "English".

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Prospective RCTs comparing surgical treatment of only incisional hernia (and not primary ventral hernias) using open and laparoscopic methods were selected.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Data extraction and critical appraisal were carried out independently by two authors (AA and MAM) using predefined data fields. The outcome variables analyzed included (a) hernia diameter; (b) operative time; (c) length of hospital stay; (d) overall complication rate; (e) bowel complications; (f) reoperation; (g) wound infection; (h) wound hematoma or seroma; (i) time to oral intake; (j) back to work; (k) recurrence rate; and (l) postoperative neuralgia. These outcomes were unanimously decided to be important since they influence the practical and surgical approach towards hernia management within hospitals and institutions. The quality of RCTs was assessed using Jadad's scoring system. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both binary and continuous data. Heterogeneity amongst the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran Q statistic and I (2) index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Sufficient data were available for the analysis of twelve clinically relevant outcomes. Statistically significant reduction in bowel complications was noted with open surgery compared to the laparoscopic repair in five studies (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.15, 5.72, p = 0.02). Comparable effects were noted for other variables which include hernia diameter (SMD -0.27, 95 % CI -0.77, 0.23, p = 0.29), operative time (SMD -0.08, 95 % CI -4.46, 4.30, p = 0.97), overall complications (OR -1.07, 95 % CI -0.33, 3.42, p = 0.91), wound infection (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.09, 2.67, p = 0.41), wound hematoma or seroma (OR 1.54, 95 % CI 0.58, 4.09, p = 0.38), reoperation rate (OR -0.32, 95 % CI 0.07, 1.43, p = 0.14), time to oral intake (SMD -0.16, 95 % CI -1.97, 2.28, p = 0.89), length of hospital stay (SMD -0.83, 95 % CI -2.22, 0.56, p = 0.24), back to work (SMD -3.14, 95 % CI -8.92, 2.64, p = 0.29), recurrence rate (OR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.81, 2.46, p = 0.23), and postoperative neuralgia (OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.16, 1.46, p = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of our meta-analysis, we conclude that laparoscopic and open repair of incisional hernia is comparable. A larger randomized controlled multicenter trial with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and standardized techniques for both repairs is required to demonstrate the superiority of one technique over the other.

Coming to terms with the fact that the evidence for laparoscopic entry is as good as it gets

Entry to the peritoneal cavity for laparoscopic surgery is associated with defined morbidity, with all entry techniques associated with substantial complications. Debate over the safest entry technique has raged over the last 2 decades, and yet, we are no closer to arriving at a scientifically valid conclusion regarding technique superiority. With hundreds of thousands of patients required to perform adequately powered studies, it is unlikely that appropriately powered comparative studies could be undertaken. This review examines the risk of complications related to laparoscopic entry, current statements from examining bodies around the world, and the medicolegal ramifications of laparoscopic entry complications. Because of the numbers required for any complications study, with regard to arriving at an evidence-based decision for laparoscopic entry, we ask: is the current literature perhaps as good as it gets?

Laparoscopic Reversal of Hartmann's Procedure: State of the Art 20 Years after the First Reported Case

Introduction. Aim of the present work is to review the literature to point out the role of laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann procedure. Material and Methods. Number of patients, age, sex, etiology, Hinchey classification, interval between procedure and reversal, position of the first trocars, mean operative time (min), number and causes of conversion, length of stay, mortality, complications, and quality of life were considered. Results. 238 males (52.4%) and 216 females (47.6%) between 38 and 67 years were analyzed. The etiology was diverticulitis in 292 patients (72.1%), carcinoma in 43 patients (10.6%), and other in 70 patients (17.3%). Only 7 articles (22.6%) reported Hinchey classification. The interval between initial procedure and reversal was between 50 and 330 days. The initial trocar was open positioned in 182 patients (43.2%) through umbilical incision, in 177 patients (41.9%) in right upper quadrant, and in 63 patients (14.9%) in colostomy site. The operative time was between 69 and 285 minutes. A total of 83 patients (12.1%) were converted and the causes were reported in 67.4%. The length of stay was between 3 and 12 days. 5 patients (0.7%) died. The complications concern 112 cases (16.4%). Conclusion. The laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal is safer and achieves faster positive results.