Direct Laparoscopic Trocar Insertion: Lessons Learned from Nine Litigated Cases

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.

Complications in laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery: definitions, classifications, incidence and risk factors - an up-to-date review

Almost all gynecological and general-surgical operations are - or can be - performed laparoscopically. In comparison to an abdominal approach, the minimally invasive access offers several advantages; however, laparoscopy (both conventional and robotic-assisted) can be associated with a number of approach-specific complications. Although the majority of them are related to the laparoscopic entry, adverse events may also occur due to the presence of pneumoperitoneum or the use of laparoscopic instruments. Unfortunately, a high proportion of complications (especially affecting the bowel and ureter) remain unrecognized during surgery. This narrative review provides comprehensive up-to-date information about definitions, classifications, risk factors and incidence of surgical complications in conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopy, with a special focus on gynecology. The topic is discussed from various perspectives, e.g. in the context of stage of surgery, injured organs, involved instruments, and in relation to malpractice claims.

Intraoperative injuries from abdominopelvic surgery: an analysis of national medicolegal data

Background

Intraoperative injuries during abdominopelvic surgery can be associated with substantial patient harm. The objective of this study was to describe abdominopelvic intraoperative injuries and their contributing factors among medicolegal cases.

Methods

This study was a descriptive analysis of medicolegal matters reported to a national body, with subgroup analyses by type of surgery. We reviewed medicolegal matters involving a population-based sample of physicians who were subject to a civil legal action or complaint to a regulatory authority that was closed between 2013 and 2017 in Canada.

Results

Our analysis included 181 civil legal cases and 88 complaints to a regulatory authority. Among legal cases, 155 patients (85.6%) (median age 47 yr) underwent elective procedures. The most common injury site was the bowel (53 cases [29.3%]). Injuries frequently occurred during dissection (79 [43.6%]) and ligation (38 [21.0%]), were identified postoperatively (138 [76.2%]) and necessitated further surgery (139 [76.8%]). Many patients experienced severe harm (55 [30.4%]) or died (25 [13.8%]). Peer experts in nongynecologic cases were more likely than those in gynecologic cases to include criticisms of a provider in a harmful incident (79 [71.2%] v. 30 [42.9%], p < 0.01). Peer expert criticisms often related to clinical evaluation, decision-making and misidentification of anatomy. Criticisms of nontechnical skills identified documentation and communication deficiencies.

Conclusion

This study confirms the importance of provider and team training to improve clinical evaluation and decision-making, documentation and communication. Effective protocols may help support clinicians in providing safer surgical care.

Prevention and management of bowel injury during gynecologic laparoscopy: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current article aims to briefly review recent literature on bowel injury in gynecologic surgery with a focus on minimally invasive techniques, strategies for prevention, and management of injury.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent reviews describe a low incidence of bowel injury that is likely affected by low rates of reporting and inconsistent definitions. The major risk factor for bowel injury is adhesive disease, and assessment and prevention techniques for the presence of adhesive disease are evolving. When bowel injury occurs, prompt diagnosis and intraoperative repair yields more favorable outcomes than delayed diagnosis. Repair can be performed by a gynecologic surgeon, with or without the help of a consultant depending on the extent of the injury and surgeon comfort.

SUMMARY

Bowel injury is a potentially catastrophic complication in gynecologic surgery, but its rarity presents a challenge in research. A high index of suspicion and meticulous surgical technique are the cornerstones of managing a bowel injury.

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.