Bladeless direct optical trocar insertion in laparoscopic procedures on the obese patient

Learning curve of optical trocar access during laparoscopic pelvic surgery: A prospective study

INTRODUCTION

The optical trocar access (OTA) is a modified closed technique that aims to minimize the risk of vascular or bowel injuries while reducing the likelihood of gas leakage. A learning curve (LC) effect for OTA has been invoked with n = 30 procedures being considered as a threshold to define expertise. We aim to evaluate the impact of the LC within the first thirty cases of OTA performed by a trainee.

METHODS

This is a prospective randomized study on 60 patients elected to laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Patients were randomized to have OTA insertion by a junior surgeon or by an expert. LC was evaluated by: 1) insertion time; number of: 2) corrections by the senior; 3) times the tip of the trocar stopped in the preperitoneal layer; 4) mistakes of skin incision; 5) times the tip of the trocar ends under the omentum; 6) complications. To analyze the LC within the first 30 cases, procedures were stratified in 3 groups (cases 1-10; 11-20; 21-30) for both trainee and expert and LC variables were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, mean OTA insertion time was 56 s. No major intra- and post-operative complications were recorded. Mean insertion time was statistically significantly longer for the trainee compared to the expert within the first 10 cases (91 vs 33 s respectively, P = .01). For cases 11-20 and 21-30, time advantage of the senior surgeon is less evident (P = .05). The number of times the tip of the trocar stopped in the preperitoneal layer was similar between groups, as well as times the tip of the trocar ends under the omentum.

CONCLUSIONS

OTA is a fast and simple way to achieve the pneumoperitoneum and first trocar insertion as a single step. The current series confirms the effectiveness of the technique since the beginning of the LC.

Direct trocar insertion vs. Veress needle technique in laparoscopic surgeries. A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy between Veress needle insertion and direct trocar insertion in laparoscopic surgeries.

METHODS

Relevant clinical trials were retrieved from major databases; Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The following outcomes were pooled for analysis: failed entry, extraperitoneal insufflation, vascular lesion, omental lesion and visceral lesion, site bleeding, reintervention, subcutaneous emphysema, solid organ lesion, and infection of the trocar site. A fixed-effects model was used to analyze homogeneous outcomes, whereas random-effects models were used to analyze heterogeneous outcomes.

RESULTS

We included a total of twelve clinical trials. The pooled analysis showed that the Veress needle was accompanied by a significant increase in the incidences of extraperitoneal insufflation (RR = 0.204; 95% Cl [0.136, 0.307], P=0.001), omental lesion (RR=0.444 95% Cl [0.239, 0.825], P=0.01), and failed entry (RR=0.169 95% Cl [0.101, 0.284], P=0.001). There is no significant difference between both cohort regarding the vascular lesion (RR=0.847 95% Cl [0.259, 2.777), P=0.7), infection of the trocar site (RR=0.583 95%Cl [0.106, 3.216], P=0.5, and visceral lesion (RR=1.308 95% Cl [0.314, 5.438], P=0.7.

CONCLUSION

The DTI was accompanied by a significantly lower incidence of complications such as extraperitoneal insufflation, failed entry, omental lesion, and subcutaneous emphysema. On the other hand, both cohorts showed similar results regarding; vascular lesions, visceral lesions, reintervention, site bleeding, and solid organ lesion.

Development of a deep learning model for safe direct optical trocar insertion in minimally invasive surgery: an innovative method to prevent trocar injuries

BACKGROUND

Direct optical trocar insertion is a common procedure in laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery. However, misinterpretations of the abdominal wall anatomy can lead to severe complications. Artificial intelligence has shown promise in surgical endoscopy, particularly in the employment of deep learning models for anatomical landmark identification. This study aimed to integrate a deep learning model with an alarm system algorithm for the precise detection of abdominal wall layers during trocar placement.

METHOD

Annotated bounding boxes and assigned classes were based on the six layers of the abdominal wall: subcutaneous, anterior rectus sheath, rectus muscle, posterior rectus sheath, peritoneum, and abdominal cavity. The cutting-edge YOLOv8 model was combined with a deep learning detector to train the dataset. The model was trained on still images and inferenced on laparoscopic videos to ensure real-time detection in the operating room. The alarm system was activated upon recognizing the peritoneum and abdominal cavity layers. We assessed the model's performance using mean average precision (mAP), precision, and recall metrics.

RESULTS

A total of 3600 images were captured from 89 laparoscopic video cases. The proposed model was trained on 3000 images, validated with a set of 200 images, and tested on a separate set of 400 images. The results from the test set were 95.8% mAP, 89.8% precision, and 91.7% recall. The alarm system was validated and accepted by experienced surgeons at our institute.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that deep learning has the potential to assist surgeons during direct optical trocar insertion. During trocar insertion, the proposed model promptly detects precise landmark references in real-time. The integration of this model with the alarm system enables timely reminders for surgeons to tilt the scope accordingly. Consequently, the implementation of the framework provides the potential to mitigate complications associated with direct optical trocar placement, thereby enhancing surgical safety and outcomes.

Abdominal access in laparoscopic surgery of obese patients: a novel abdominal access technique

BACKGROUND

An important step in laparoscopic surgery is abdominal access. Several abdominal access techniques have been described to reduce complications. We compare our novel abdominal access technique (MESAD) with other abdominal access techniques, particularly to reduce complications in obese patients.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the MESAD method and other methods we use for abdominal access in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery of obese patients DESIGN: Retrospective SETTING: Gynecology department in university hospital PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent abdominal access by the MESAD technique, the Veress needle technique, and the Hasson technique were included in our study. In addition to demographic data, minor and major complications, number of unsuccessful attempts, conversion to another technique, and abdominal access times were collected from all patient files.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical data and complications SAMPLE SIZE: 66 patients, 26 by MESAD technique, 24 by the Veress needle technique, and 16 by the Hasson technique.

RESULTS

There were two major complications (one in the Veress group and one in the Hasson technique group) and 7 minor complications. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of complications (P=.477, P=.476, respectively). The fastest technique for abdominal access was in the MESAD technique whereas the slowest was in the Hasson (P<.001). The failure of abdominal access and subsequent conversion to another technique was most common in the Veress group. However, no significant difference was found between the groups (P=.092).

CONCLUSIONS

The MESAD technique is an easy method to both learn and teach. We think that the low major-minor complication rates in the MESAD technique will allow surgeons to reduce their anxiety at the first entry and to perform a more comfortable operation.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.

Primary entry trocar design and entry-related complications at laparoscopy in obese patients: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Safe primary entry at laparoscopy could present challenges in obese patients. Various techniques have been proposed in previous studies, however, the characteristics of the actual device utilized may be more influential than the technique in achieving successful abdominal entry in patients with increased BMI.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis included both randomized and non-randomized studies gathered with no date filters from MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Clinicaltrials.gov. PRISMA guidelines underpinned the conduct and reporting of the review. The meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using a generalized linear mixed model and analyses included random-effects models. The primary outcome was the proportion of first access vascular and visceral injuries incurred in the process of laparoscopic abdominal surgery in patients with a BMI >30 kg/m2. Subgroup analysis was performed for optical versus non-optically enabled devices.

RESULTS

In total, 5403 patients were analysed across 13 observational studies with a mean BMI of 45.93 kg/m2. In 216 patients from two randomized studies, the mean BMI was 39.92 kg/m2. The overall incidence using a random-effects model was 8.1 per 1000 events of visceral and vascular injuries (95 per cent c.i. 0.003 to 0.024). Heterogeneity was statistically significant at I2 = 80.5 per cent (69.6 per cent; 87.5 per cent, P< 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, a tendency towards reduced injuries when optical devices were employed was observed with one per 100 injuries in these trocars (95 per cent c.i. 0.001 to 0.018) versus four per 100 (95 per cent c.i. -0.019 to -0.102) in non-optically enabled devices.

CONCLUSION

Injuries during primary laparoscopic entry undertaken in obese patient groups are uncommon. Due to considerable heterogeneity in the small number of examined studies, evidence was insufficient and largely of low quality to ascribe differences in the incidence of injuries to the characteristics of the primary entry trocar utilized.

Laparoscopic entry techniques: Which should you prefer?

BACKGROUND

Despite a debate spanning two decades, no consensus has been achieved about the safest laparoscopic entry technique.

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence about the safety of the main different laparoscopic entry techniques.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Six electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different laparoscopic entry techniques were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Entry-related complications and total time for entry were compared among the different methods of entry calculating pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); P < 0.05 was considered significant.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 25 RCTs (6950 patients) were included. Complications considered were vascular, visceral and omental injury, failed entry, extraperitoneal insufflation, bleeding and infection at the trocar site bleeding, and incisional hernia. Compared to direct trocar, the OR for Veress needle was significantly higher for omental injury (OR 3.65, P < 0.001), for failed entry (OR 4.19, P < 0.001), and for extraperitoneal insufflation (OR 5.29, P < 0.001). Compared to the open method, the OR for Veress needle was significantly higher for omental injury (OR 4.93, P = 0.001), for failed entry (OR 2.99, P < 0.001), for extraperitoneal insufflation (OR 4.77; P = 0.04), and for incisional hernia. Compared to the open method, the OR for direct trocar was significantly lower for visceral injury (OR 0.17, P = 0.002) and for trocar site infection (OR 0.27, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The direct trocar method may be preferred over Veress needle and open methods as a laparoscopic entry technique since it appears associated to a lower risk of complications.

Postoperative transverse colon necrosis due to mesenteric injury during laparoscopic surgery for endometrial carcinoma

Hemorrhage and organ injury have been frequently reported as complications associated with trocar puncture in laparoscopic surgery. This report presents a case of delayed intestinal necrosis due to mesenteric injury. A 76-year-old woman who had a history of distal gastrectomy and adrenal insufficiency was diagnosed with stage IA endometrial cancer. We performed laparoscopic total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The upper abdominal wall and mesentery were adhered, and bleeding from the mesentery was noted during the first trocar puncture of the umbilical region, resulting in ligation and hemostasis. Abdominal pain and fever developed on the third postoperative day, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography demonstrated transverse colon perforation. Emergency laparotomy showed necrosis in the proximal transverse colon and a defect in the marginal artery. Mesenteric injury can lead to delayed intestinal necrosis without intraoperative macroscopic findings. In laparoscopic cases where adhesion is expected, trocar placement should be carefully considered.

Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic appendectomy: A stepwise systematic review

Introduction

Appendectomy is a common emergency surgery performed globally. Despite the frequency of laparoscopic appendectomy, consensus does not exist on the best way to perform each procedural step. We identified literature on key intraoperative steps to inform best technical practice during laparoscopic appendectomy.

Methods

Research questions were framed using the population, indication, comparison, outcome (PICO) format for 6 key operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy: abdominal entry, placement of laparoscopic ports, division of mesoappendix, division of appendix, removal of appendix, and fascial closure. These questions were used to build literature queries in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. Evidence quality and certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) definitions.

Results

Recommendations were rendered for 6 PICO questions based on 28 full length articles. Low quality evidence favors direct trocar insertion for abdominal entry and establishment of pneumoperitoneum. Single port appendectomy results in improved cosmesis with unclear clinical implications. There was insufficient data to determine the optimal method of appendiceal stump closure, but use of a specimen extraction bag reduces rates of superficial surgical site infection and intra-abdominal abscess. Port sites made with radially dilating trocars are less likely to necessitate closure and are less likely to result in port site hernia. When port sites are closed, a closure device should be used.

Conclusion

Key operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy have sufficient data to encourage standardized practice.

The use of optical trocars in abdominal entry among patients with obesity - A case series

Introduction

Bariatric and metabolic procedures are becoming more common worldwide and laparoscopic surgery is the primary method to perform these operations. Accessing the peritoneum remains a challenge in obese patients and this study aims to assess the safety of optical trocars in bariatric surgery.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on all patients that have undergone bariatric surgery in our center between the years of 2017–2019 to examine the method by which pneumoperitoneum was established. We studied the incidence and type of complications associated with creating pneumoperitoneum in obese patients, along with the rates of converting to an open procedure.

Results

A total of 821 patients underwent bariatric surgery in our center over the 3 year period. They had an average age of 34.2 years (range = 13–65) with an average BMI of 45.9 kg/m². Optical trocars successfully established pneumoperitoneum in all these patients. Complications attributed to optical trocar entry were encountered in 8 patients (0.97%), 3 males and 5 females. The average BMI of these 8 patients is 52.7 kg/m², 4 of which had a BMI >50 kg/m². The complications encountered included 3 liver lacerations, 4 mesenteric injuries and 1 omental vessel laceration. Four injuries were caused by 12 mm optical trocars while the other 4 injuries were caused by 5 mm optical trocars. These complications were managed laparoscopically and no patients had to be converted to a laparotomy.

Conclusion

The use of non-bladed, optical trocar entry into the abdomen can be considered a safe method in the establishment of pneumoperitoneum in patients with obesity. However, more studies are required randomizing the use of optical trocars to the open Hasson technique in order to further validate this method.

•

The establishment of pneumoperitoneum is a challenge in patients with obesity.

•

Optical trocars are thought to facilitate abdominal entry amongst obese patients.

•

The use of optical trocars in the establishment of pneumoperitoneum carries a low complication rate.

•

None of the noted complications caused any mortality with no patients requiring conversion to open surgery.

•

Use of non bladed optical trocars for abdominal entry is a safe method in the establishment of pneumoperitoneum.

Optimizing first trocar access for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Optical trocar access through the upper abdominal quadrant using the Kii Fios First Entry trocar

OBJECTIVES

A pre-equipped metal trocar is required to use as a camera trocar due to a specification change in the da Vinci X/Xi system (Intuitive Surgical). We observed slight slippage of a trocar placed by the open method. With optical trocar access (OTA), the initial trocar is viewed directly with a laparoscope during placement. Reports regarding OTA for robotic surgery are limited, particularly for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We modified the OTA procedure such that it was appropriate for RARP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 158 patients were enrolled in this study. The first trocar placement time (FTPT) was compared between the open and OTA groups. In the OTA group, the trocar was mainly placed through the upper abdominal quadrant. We also analyzed the differences between the conventional and modified OTA procedures using the Kii Fios First Entry trocar (Applied Medical). We examined the factors affecting the FTPT using linear regression models. A P value <.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The FTPT was significantly shorter in the OTA group than the open group (P < .0001). The modified method was associated with a shorter FTPT (P = .0001). None of the patient characteristics affected the FTPT in either group. No major complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

OTA was applied successfully during RARP. Use of the Kii Fios First Entry trocar with upper abdominal quadrant placement was suitable for RARP.

Fast, Easy, and Safe Establishment of Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery: The Fingertip Technique

Background and Objectives:

There is no consensus on an ideal abdominal entry in laparoscopic surgery; as such, we aimed to assess the feasibility of the fingertip technique for safe entry and the establishment of pneumoperitoneum in transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery.

Methods:

We prospectively assessed 96 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal surgery between December 2018 and September 2019. For all patients, pneumoperitoneum was performed using the fingertip technique, which we recently defined. The duration of time for initial entry, the occurrence of gas leakage, and the complications were evaluated.

Results:

The median duration of initial entry was 90 (75 – 145) seconds. Pneumoperitoneum was established on the first attempt in all patients. Some events were encountered at the time of implementation of the fingertip technique, such as subcutaneous minor bleeding (5.2%) and gas leakage (4.1%). These events were controlled with cauterization and suturing. There was no visceral or major vascular injury in any patient case.

Conclusions:

The fingertip technique is a fast, safe, and feasible method for establishing pneumoperitoneum in transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery.

Randomized control trial on effectiveness and safety of direct trocar versus Veress needle entry techniques in obese women during diagnostic laparoscopy

PURPOSE

To determine the benefits and safety of direct trocar insertion versus Veress needle technique in obese women undertaking diagnostic laparoscopy procedures.

METHODS

Randomized-controlled trial on 135 obese women undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy and dye test for infertility was conducted. Women were randomly assigned to either direct trocar access (n = 68) or Veress needle access (n = 67) before achieving pneumoperitoneum. The same surgeon executed the laparoscopic techniques with a single-puncture technique. The primary outcome measures included total length of the procedure and incidence of any complications, while the mean laparoscopic entry time, volume of CO₂ required, and total of tries needed to attain successful entry were secondary outcomes. Intention-to-treat principle was applied to analysis.

RESULTS

Women in both groups had similar socio-demographic and clinical characteristics and none were lost to follow-up. The overall length of the procedure was significantly lesser in the direct trocar group compared to the Veress needle group (9.9 ± 6.0 vs 16.7 ± 4.7 min; p < 0.001). No significant differences occurred in other outcomes including mean entry time, volume of CO₂ used, number of attempts for successful entry, and major/minor complications (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct trocar technique may be an effective alternative to Veress needle for pneumoperitoneum in obese women for diagnostic laparoscopy. It has a comparable rapid laparoscopic entry time but a significantly lower duration of the procedure and shorter exposure to anesthesia. Both methods are equally effective as there was no significant difference in the complications recorded. A greater sample trial may be essential for more corroborative substantiation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PACTR201510000999192.

Operative Gynecological Laparoscopy Under Conscious Sedation

Background and Objectives:

Operative laparoscopy is generally performed under general anesthesia. Local anesthesia and conscious sedation may be useful in select short procedures. In the present study, we evaluated safety and efficacy of operative laparoscopy under conscious sedation.

Methods:

Retrospective observational study evaluating patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy. Laparoscopy under conscious sedation was performed for each patient with umbilical direct insertion of a 12-mm port, followed by 2 ancillary ports at 1 cm medially to the anterior superior iliac spine. Conversion to conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy was recorded. Conscious sedation was obtained using Remifentanil and Propofol, administered by an infusion system based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models. Local anesthesia was administered at port insertion sites and for paracervical block. Pain intensity was evaluated with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Adverse events and drug concentrations throughout the procedure were retrieved.

Results:

Our study population included 166 patients. They underwent laparoscopic unilateral versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, ovarian cystectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and omentectomy for a borderline ovarian tumor, myomectomy; or underwent surgery for unexplained infertility evaluation, pelvic pain, staging of ovarian cancer. Mean duration of pneumoperitoneum was 22.3 ± 7.2 min. Rate of conversion to laparoscopy under general anesthesia was 17/166 (10.2%) and there were only 3 cases of patients with low tolerability to the procedure. No severe adverse events occurred. Hospital discharge occurred in all unconverted cases after 6 to 18 h.

Conclusions:

Operative laparoscopy under conscious sedation and local anesthesia appears to be a feasible technique in gynecologic surgery with no adverse patient outcomes.

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.

Laparoscopic entry techniques: What is the controversy?

OBJECTIVE

To review reported complications related to the different laparoscopic entry techniques in the human and veterinary literature and describe the benefits and limitations of each technique.

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review of 57 peer-reviewed articles.

METHODS

An electronic database search identified human and veterinary literature describing complications related to entry technique during laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Open- and closed-entry techniques may result in trauma of abdominal organs or vasculature. During laparoscopy in man, injury to bowel and major vasculature is reported in 0.02% and 0.04% of procedures with open- or closed-entry techniques, respectively. Designs of Veress needles and trocar cannula assemblies have been developed to improve ease and safety. Early complications, defined as those observed at the time of port entry into the abdominal cavity, result from the puncture of a blood vessel leading to substantial visible hemorrhage. Late complications are detected 24 or 48 hours after surgery and result from the puncture of a loop of intestine that was not detected at the time of initial surgery. The major reasons for iatrogenic trauma in man are related to anatomical factors and the presence of adhesions. No explanation for cause of complications was identified for animals.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus in the human or veterinary literature about the best entry technique for laparoscopy. The rate of complications related to entry technique in small animals is not known because the data are underreported.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Complications related to entry techniques are expected in both man and animals. Improvements in techniques and equipment design are being developed to minimize risk.

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.

Optical trocar access for initial trocar placement in laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: A propensity score-matching analysis

INTRODUCTION

Optical trocar access is a technique to place the initial trocar in laparoscopic surgery. With optical trocar access, each tissue layer can be visualized before insertion, which can help prevent organ injury, and air leaks at the trocar site can be minimized even in obese patients. The aim of this study was to compare the time needed for trocar insertion using optical trocar access and an open method in patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed our prospectively collected database and identified 384 patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery involving initial trocar insertion near the umbilicus by either the optical trocar access or the open method. Before the two methods were compared, propensity score matching was used to adjust for essential variables between the optical trocar access and open groups.

RESULTS

Patients categorized in the optical trocar access and open groups were matched one-to-one by propensity score matching, and 137 pairs of patients were generated. The time needed for trocar insertion was significantly shorter in the optical trocar access group than in the open group (36.6 vs 209.8 s, P < 0.01). The multivariable analysis identified an inexperienced surgeon as the only independent risk factor for prolonged time for initial trocar insertion using the optical trocar access.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that optical trocar access may be recommended for inserting the initial trocar in laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery.

Optimal Initial Trocar Placement for Morbidly Obese Patients

Background and Objectives

Rates of morbid obesity are skyrocketing worldwide. Not only bariatric surgeons, but also general surgeons are often operating on morbidly obese patients. Many general surgeons still use the same anatomic landmarks for patients with body mass index (BMI) over 35 mg/kg² as they do for patients of normal weight and can therefore find accessing the morbidly obese abdominal organs difficult. This paper will describe a technique that is easily reproducible and applicable in a wide range of laparoscopic cases.

Method

The xiphoid process is the only landmark referenced. From the xiphoid process, the surgeon puts 2 fists together and places the first trocar inferiorly 2 cm lateral to the midline in either direction. The umbilicus is not used as a landmark. This placement is 15-18 cm inferior to the xiphoid process, but allows adequate visualization for any foregut case. An optical trocar is used.

Results

In over 1400 bariatric cases, the initial trocar was safely placed with this technique. Most of these cases were performed with the method, but some had one modification: the first trocar was placed in the midclavicular line in the subcostal area if there were previous midline scars. In no cases was an extra-long, or bariatric, trocar used.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic access in morbidly obese patients does not have to be difficult. Using an optical trocar off the midline 15-18 cm below the xiphoid process will provide reliable, safe access in the morbidly obese patient, with excellent visualization of the target anatomy.

Comparison of Direct Trocar Entry and Veress Needle Entry in Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the direct trocar insertion (DTI) and Veress needle insertion (VNI) techniques in laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-one patients scheduled for bariatric surgery at Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey, were included in this study. In 39 patients, a bladed retractable nonoptical trocar was used for DTI, and VNI was performed in 42 patients. Intraoperative access-related parameters were compared. Data were analyzed with Student's t and chi-squared tests. A P value of <.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable demographic profiles. Laparoscopic entry time was shorter in the DTI group (79.6 ± 94.6 versus 217.6 ± 111.0 seconds; P < .0001). Successful entry rates in the first attempt, CO2 consumptions, failed attempt rates, and overall intraoperative complication rates were similar. However, in the DTI group, 2 patients had mesenteric injuries, and 1 of them required conversion to open surgery due to the mesenteric hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

DTI in obese patients significantly shortens the entry time, but there can be severe complications with DTI when a nonoptical bladed trocar is used blindly. Actually, neither method can be recommended for entry into the abdomen in this population based on our results. If the surgeon has to choose a nonoptical trocar in bariatric surgery, preference for the VNI technique instead of the DTI technique is safer.

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.

Safer trocar insertion for closed laparoscopic access: ex vivo assessment of an improved Veress needle

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery is widely practiced surgical technique in the modern surgical toolbox. The Veress needle insertion technique, while faster and easier, is associated with higher rates of iatrogenic complications (injury to internal organs, major blood vessels, etc.), morbidity and even mortality with a reported overall risk of 0.32% during surgical interventions. In order to increase the safety and ease of closed insertion technique, we designed and tested an improved prototype of the Veress needle.

METHODS

The new Veress needle includes a distal expandable portion that allows elevation of the abdominal wall and safe insertion of the first trocar over it. The needle was assessed by measurement of ease of insertion, ease of trocar advancement, associated tissue damage, device integrity and weight-bearing capacity on an ex vivo Gallus domesticus animal model: The prototype was tested over 20 times using different traction forces. The experiment was qualitatively repeated on an ex vivo porcine model.

RESULTS

In the G. domesticus model, the improved needle supported forces of up to 5.75 kg F. No damage or mechanical malfunction was seen at any stage of the experiment. Needle penetration, ease of trocar insertion, system anchoring and weight-bearing capacity were rated (1-5) by four raters--mean 4.9 ± 0.31. Inter-rater agreement was high (free marginal κ 0.75). The porcine experiment revealed similar ease of use with neither complication nor damage to the abdominal wall.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the new Veress system is easy to use, requires no additional training, non-inferior in its capabilities compared to the traditional Veress needle, with the advantage of improving the safety of the first trocar insertion phase of the operation.

Umbilical stalk elevation technique for safer Veress needle insertion in obese patients: a case-control study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare our umbilical stalk elevation (USE) technique with the classic Veress needle (VN) technique in obese patients.

STUDY DESIGN

The USE technique was performed on 40 patients. One control per case was randomly selected from among those undergoing the classic VN technique using a random number table. In USE technique, a 12 mm skin incision was created at the superior crease of the umbilical fold, and the underlying subcutaneous adipose tissue was bluntly dissected using the tip of a fine clamp until the umbilical stalk was isolated at the inferior and central part of the incision. Next, the umbilical stalk was covered and held by a towel clip, and the abdominal wall was elevated by upward traction. The VN was then inserted nearly perpendicular to the incision and turned toward the pelvis immediately after resistance to the needle had been lost. A post-hoc power analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The number of attempts was significantly lower in the USE laparoscopy group than in the classic laparoscopy group (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 2.1 ± 0.7, respectively; P<0.001). The USE technique group had a slightly shorter abdominal entry time than did the classic technique group (328.52 ± 63.71 vs. 434.95 ± 124.10s; P<0.001). Six (7.5%) failed insufflations occurred in our study (5 patients in the classic group vs. 1 patient in the USE group (P=0.10).

CONCLUSION

Our novel USE technique can be an effective means of establishing pneumoperitoneum in obese patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures.