Gasless laparoscopy for benign gynecological diseases using an abdominal wall-lifting system

KeyLoop retractor for global gasless laparoscopy: evaluation of safety and feasibility in a porcine model

BACKGROUND

Many surgeons in low- and middle-income countries have described performing surgery using gasless (lift) laparoscopy due to inaccessibility of carbon dioxide and reliable electricity, but the safety and feasibility of the technique has not been well documented. We describe preclinical testing of the in vivo safety and utility of KeyLoop, a laparoscopic retractor system to enable gasless laparoscopy.

METHODS

Experienced laparoscopic surgeons completed a series of four laparoscopic tasks in a porcine model: laparoscopic exposure, small bowel resection, intracorporeal suturing with knot tying, and cholecystectomy. For each participating surgeon, the four tasks were completed in a practice animal using KeyLoop. Surgeons then completed these tasks using standard-of-care (SOC) gas laparoscopy and KeyLoop in block randomized order to minimize learning curve effect. Vital signs, task completion time, blood loss and surgical complications were compared between SOC and KeyLoop using paired nonparametric tests. Surgeons completed a survey on use of KeyLoop compared to gas laparoscopy. Abdominal wall tissue was evaluated for injury by a blinded pathologist.

RESULTS

Five surgeons performed 60 tasks in 15 pigs. There were no significant differences in times to complete the tasks between KeyLoop and SOC. For all tasks, there was a learning curve with task completion times related to learning the porcine model. There were no significant differences in blood loss, vital signs or surgical complications between KeyLoop and SOC. Eleven surgeons from the United States and Singapore felt that KeyLoop could be used to safely perform several common surgical procedures. No abdominal wall tissue injury was observed for either KeyLoop or SOC.

CONCLUSIONS

Procedure times, blood loss, abdominal wall tissue injury and surgical complications were similar between KeyLoop and SOC gas laparoscopy for basic surgical procedures. This data supports KeyLoop as a useful tool to increase access to laparoscopy in low- and middle-income countries.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals.

METHODS

This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis-Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies.

DISCUSSION

This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338.

Impact of gasless laparoscopy on circulation, respiration, stress response, and other complications in gynecological geriatrics

This study aimed to explore the impact of gasless laparoscopy on circulation, respiration, stress response and other complications in gynecological surgery for old female patients. 40 patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists II-III, 60-70y) scheduled for elective gynecological laparoscopy were divided into non-pneumoperitoneum group (NP) and pneumoperitoneum group (P). All patients included were monitored for Compliance, Ppeak, Ppalt, MAP, CVP, HR, SpO2, blood gas analysis (pH, PaCO2, and PaO2), serum cortisol, TNF-α, and IL-6. There were significant differences in bowel tones recovery, postoperative shoulder pain, nausea, and vomiting between two groups (P < 0.05). In the P group, the levels of CVP, and Ppeak and Ppalt at both 10 minutes and 30 minutes after suspension/pneumoperitoneum were significantly higher than those in NP group (P < 0.05). When it came to Compliance, this trend was reversed (P < 0.05). As surgery was conducted, the plasma concentrations of cortisol, IL-6 and TNF-α in the P group were higher than those in the NP group (P < 0.05). Thus, for gynecological diseases of geriatrics, the effect on respiratory and circulatory function is less significant of gasless laparoscopy than in pneumoperitoneum. The stress response, recovery of bowl tone, should pain, nausea, and vomiting after surgery in gasless laparoscopy is improved than in pneumoperitoneum.

Abdominal wall-lifting versus CO2 pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopy: a review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study is to compare the operative parameters and outcomes of conventional CO2-pneumoperitoneum (PP) versus gasless abdominal wall-lifting (AWL) for laparoscopic surgery. The literature databases of PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had compared the CO2-PP approach with that of gasless AWL for laparoscopic surgery and which had been published between 1995 and 2012. Data for the operative parameters (i.e. surgery duration, intraoperative heart rate (HR), perioperative complications, and postoperative duration of hospital stay and time to activity) and outcomes (postoperative shoulder pain, nausea/vomiting (PONV), partial pressure of CO2 in the blood (PaCO2), blood pH, and serum levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL)-6) were extracted from the identified RCTs. RevMan software, version 5.2, was used for data synthesis and statistical analysis. Nineteen RCTs were selected for the meta-analysis, involving a total of 791 patients who had undergone laparoscopic operations with CO2-PP (n = 399) or gasless AWL (n = 392). Sub-group analysis indicated that the patients who underwent gasless AWL had significantly shorter postoperative time to activity (weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.23 d, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.37 to -0.09; P = 0.001), lower incidence of PONV (odds ratio (OR) = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.57; P = 0.001) and lower postoperative PaCO2 level (WMD = -3.09 mmHg, 95% CI: -4.66 to -1.53; P = 0.0001), compared to the patients who underwent CO2-PP. However, the CO2-PP method was associated with a significantly shorter surgery duration than the gasless AWL method (WMD = 8.61, 95% CI: 3.19 to 14.03; P = 0.002). There were no significant advantages detected for either approach with respect to the intraoperative HR, the perioperative complication rate, or the postoperative parameters of duration of hospital stay, shoulder pain, blood pH, or serum IL-6 level. We concluded form present study that the gasless AWL method has the features of shorter time, lower postoperative PaCO2, and lower PONV incidence while the CO2-PP method for laparoscopy requires shorter surgical time.

Hybrid approach of retractor-based and conventional laparoscopy enabling minimally invasive hysterectomy in a morbidly obese patient: case report and review of the literature

Minimally invasive hysterectomy in obese patients may be limited by laparoscopic sight on the one hand and by intraoperative complications related to reduced ventilation due to pneumoperitoneum on the other. Retractor-based laparoscopy offers an operative technique reducing anesthesia risks. We report the case of laparoscopic hysterectomy in an obese patient of short stature. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy was performed by a hybrid approach of a retractor system exerting its effects on lifting the abdominal wall through gravity and conventional laparoscopy, thus bypassing the adverse effects of pneumoperitoneum on ventilation.

Gasless Laparoscopy versus Conventional Laparoscopy in Uterine Myomectomy: A Single-Centre Randomized Trial

In a single-centre, randomized trial, gasless laparoscopic myomectomy was compared with conventional laparoscopic myomectomy. The study examined feasibility, safety, reliability and post-operative outcomes. Estimated blood loss, duration of surgery, early post-operative outcomes and length of hospital stay were recorded. Compared with conventional laparoscopic myomectomy, gasless laparoscopy resulted in significantly lower intra-operative blood loss (median 100 ml vs 80 ml, respectively) and duration of surgery (median 94 min vs 71 min, respectively). Post-operative abdominal drainage volume was significantly lower after gasless laparoscopy than after conventional laparoscopy (median 100 ml vs 240 ml). There was no significant difference between duration of post-operative fever, post-operative time to flatus or length of hospital stay. Both forms of laparoscopy are suitable for uterine myomectomy, and comparison of these methods showed that gasless laparoscopy had potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy.