Open Versus Closed Laparoscopy: Yet an Unresolved Controversy

Transumbilical laparoscopy for pneumoperitoneum establishment: a comprehensive multicentre evaluation affirming safety, feasibility, and a range of clinical benefits

Introduction

Transumbilical laparoscopy (TUL) has emerged as a promising technique for establishing pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, offering potential safety, feasibility, and clinical benefits. This retrospective multicentre study aims to evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of TUL in the management of gallbladder diseases.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 2,543 patients who underwent TUL between 2011 and 2021 across various medical institutions in Italy. Data collection included demographic, clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters. Standardized protocols were followed for preoperative and postoperative management. The TUL technique involved precise anatomical incision and trocar placement.

Results

The study demonstrated favorable outcomes associated with TUL, including a low conversion rate to open surgery (0.55%), minimal intraoperative complications (0.16%), and short hospital stays (average 2.4 days). The incidence of incisional hernias was notably low (0.4%). Comparison with existing literature revealed consistent findings and provided unique insights into the advantages of TUL.

Discussion

Despite limitations, such as the absence of a control group and the retrospective nature of the study, the findings contribute valuable insights to the literature. They inform surgical decision-making and advance patient care in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder diseases.

Conclusion

Transumbilical laparoscopy shows promise as a safe and feasible technique for establishing pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The study's findings support its clinical benefits, including low conversion rates, minimal complications, and short hospital stays. Further research, including prospective studies with control groups, is warranted to validate these results and optimize patient outcomes.

Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy as a Safe and Feasible Alternative to the Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Aims A prospective observational study was performed to assess the feasibility and safety of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Parameters comprising age, sex, number of cases in which intra-operative difficulty were encountered, and outcomes such as number of cases that required conversion to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, postoperative pain on the visual analog scale (VAS), and postoperative hospital stay were assessed. We also documented difficult cases that were operated successfully with three ports, and the number of cases that needed conversion to four ports along with the reason for the conversion. Material and methods The patients were operated upon in the supine position in all cases. A pre-emptive analgesia with 1% lignocaine was administered in all cases prior to making the incision. The first port was 10-mm supraumbilical and inserted by the open technique. After insertion of the umbilical port, pneumoperitoneum was created by maintaining a maximum pressure of 12 mmHg and a flow rate of 8 L/minute. A camera head with a 30° telescope was introduced in the peritoneal cavity, and diagnostic laparoscopy was performed. A 10-mm subxiphoid port and a 5-mm subcostal port were placed under vision, with the latter placed more lateral and inferior to the conventional port position for better triangulation and ergonomics. The outcomes measured were operative time, the number of cases requiring a fourth port, postoperative pain (VAS), and postoperative hospital stay (number of days patients stayed in the hospital post-surgery until discharge). Data were collected using MS Excel, and an analysis was performed using SPSS Version 21.0. Results Data of 102 patients were analyzed prospectively. The mean age of the patients was 50.98 years, with an SD of 16.88, and the gender ratio was 73:29 (female: male). The mean operative time was 52.68 ± 20.84 minutes, with an SD of 20.84. Difficulty was encountered in 18.6% of cases in the form of pericholecystic adhesions, aberrant Calot's anatomy, empyema or mucocele of the gallbladder, or bleeding from the liver bed or cystic artery stump. Postoperative pain was less in our study due to the reduced number of ports and the use of a pre-emptive analgesia, with a mean VAS score of 1.22 and an SD of 0.56. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 1.08 days, with an SD of 0.31. We needed to convert to a four-port procedure for safety in 2.9% cases. The operative time and postoperative hospital stay in our study were similar to those of other studies, but our average pain score was less due to the use of the pre-emptive analgesia. Only three cases required conversion to four ports, and 99 cases were successfully managed with three ports without compromising safety. No bile duct injury occurred in any of our 102 cases. Conclusion From this study, we conclude that three-port cholecystectomy is feasible, and it can be performed even in difficult cases without compromising safety. The surgical time is similar to that of four-port cholecystectomy, and the postoperative stay is shorter. The decreased number of ports and the pre-emptive analgesia reduced postoperative pain, cosmesis was better, and the incidence of bile duct injury did not increase. The procedure can also be converted to four-port cholecystectomy at any time if safety is compromised. Therefore, three-port cholecystectomy is a viable and safe option in the treatment of gallstone disease.

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.

Port Site Consequences After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Using an Open Versus Closed Approach of Pneumoperitoneum

Introduction: Laparoscopic surgery is the standard method for cholecystectomy, and pneumoperitoneum is performed either in a closed or open technique. However, exposure to the consequences of the port site may increase the patient's morbidity. Therefore, this study was conducted to compare both approaches in terms of complications at the port site of each procedure and potential risk factors.

Methods: A prospective study was conducted in the department of surgery, in hospitals affiliated with Kirkuk and Diyala governorates in Iraq, from January 2019 to March 2022. The participating patients (200) were electively divided into two groups, each group comprising 100 patients. The pneumoperitoneum was established in the first group by an open technique (Hasson) while in the second group it was by using a closed technique (Veress needle). A comparison was made between the two techniques for intraoperative and postoperative complications that may have occurred due to port insertion up to 18 weeks.

Results: According to the results, the highest percentage was for the following: females (84.0%), ages between 50 and 59 years (43.5%), and body mass index (BMI) range 25-30 kg/m² (49.0%). No significant difference was observed between those variables for the two surgical techniques (p-value > 0.05). No death was recorded in the study. Consequences at the port site were observed in 10.5% of patients, the majority reported in the open approach (8.5%) as follows: bleeding (3.0%), hematoma (2.0%), wound infection (1.5%), hernia (1.5%), and vascular injury (0.5%).

Conclusions: Thus, we concluded that port site complications are lowest in closed laparoscopic surgery which was not shown to be statistically significant but values showed less complications. Furthermore, samples could be used to gain a good statistical significance.

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.

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.