Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Valveless and Standard Insufflation During Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Multi-institutional Trial

A comparison of CO2-related complications in partial nephrectomies between the AirSeal system and conventional system: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopy has largely replaced open nephrectomies owing to its minimally invasive approach. Conventional insufflation systems use a one-way valve for allowing the instruments while maintaining insufflation. Subcutaneous emphysema is among the most common and feared complications resulting from insufflation. The established risk factors also include increased end-tidal CO2. AirSeal® offers a potential solution to reduce the incidence of adverse events. The present study aimed to evaluate the difference between the incidence of subcutaneous emphysema and an important predictor of the incidence of subcutaneous emphysema: end-tidal CO2. An independent reviewer extracted the relevant data and populated the data fields in the Excel sheet from the included studies. Continuous variables were pooled using standardized mean differences. Binary outcomes were pooled using the log odds ratio. Four randomized-controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 307 patients were included in the analysis, and a pooled odds ratio of 0.40 (95% CI 0.10-1.66, I2 = 20%, p = 0.29) was obtained, which was not significant. Three studies compared the mean end-tidal CO2. The total number of patients included in this analysis was 194. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) was -0.59 (95% CI - 0.81, - 0.38; I2 = 0%, p = 0.91). AirSeal significantly lowers the EtCO2 in patients undergoing laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, which can therefore impact recovery as well as the rate of complications.

Impact of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on post-operative pain in robotic urological surgery: a systematic review

Robotic technology has revolutionised minimally invasive urological surgery, enhancing precision and minimising surgical complications. Recent evidence suggests that utilising lower pneumoperitoneum pressures improves clinical outcomes but the comparative impact on post-operative pain remains uncertain. This systematic review analyses the literature on low-pressure pneumoperitoneum to investigate its impact on pain and recovery following robotic-assisted urological surgeries, including prostatectomy, partial ephrectomy, and cystectomy. Post-operative opioid consumption, total operating time, estimated intra-operative bleeding, and total inpatient stay were investigated as secondary outcomes. PubMed, NHS Knowledge and Library Hub, Cochrane Central databases, and EMBASE were searched between January 2010 and May 2024. Any identified studies were reviewed against eligibility criteria by two independent authors prior to inclusion. The review was written in compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. Nine studies were included: six focused on prostatectomy, two on partial nephrectomy, and one on cystectomy. Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum was found to result in reduced postoperative pain scores, particularly in the immediate recovery period and on postoperative day 1. Despite these improvements, post-operative opioid consumption remained consistent with standard pressures. The surgical workspace was not compromised when pneumoperitoneum pressures were lower. Lowering pneumoperitoneum pressures in robotic-assisted urological surgery appears to reduce immediate postoperative pain scores without increasing overall complications. This has not led to a noticeable reduction in post-operative opioid consumption. The lack of consistent reduction in opioid use and limited high-quality studies highlight the need for further research, particularly for partial nephrectomy and cystectomy.

Valveless and conventional insufflation on pneumoperitoneum-related complications in robotic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

INTRODUCTION

The use of pneumoperitoneum is an essential step for performing laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Pneumoperitoneum insufflation can cause complications such as pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, and pneumomediastinum. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety of using the conventional insufflation system versus a Valveless insufflation system as devices for manufacturing pneumoperitoneum in robotic-assisted nephrectomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PUBMED, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane, from inception until January 2024. Randomized and nonrandomized prospective studies were included in the meta-analysis, performed by the R+ Rstudio.

RESULTS

Three publications encompassing 478 patients were included. We observed no difference in SCE (OR 0.60, CI 95% 0.27;1.34, p = 0.134, I2 = 0), PNM (OR 0.82, CI 95% 0.24;2.78, p = 0.558, I2 = 0), When comparing groups conventional insufflation system (CIS) versus AirSealTM insufflation system (AIS) with pneumoperitoneum pressure of 15 mmHg or 12 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

The presented data showed no difference between the AIS when compared with CIS in Pneumoperitoneum insufflation-related complications.

Development of the European Laparoscopic Intermediate Urological Skills LUSs2 Curriculum: A Delphi Consensus from the European School of Urology

Background and objective

While programmes such as the European Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills have made strides in foundational training, a significant gap exists for intermediate and advanced laparoscopy education. Our objective is to develop and validate the European laparoscopic intermediate urological skills (LUSs2) curriculum, which will establish uniformity in the training of urological laparoscopic procedures and facilitate proficiency among practitioners.

Methods

The study combines a literature review, cognitive task analysis development by a steering group, and a two-round Delphi survey involving international experts in urological laparoscopy. Consensus was defined as agreement of ≥70% among experts. The survey included statements on various laparoscopic procedures, assessed on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree).

Key findings and limitations

The Delphi process achieved consensus on 85% (235/275) of statements, indicating a strong agreement on the curriculum's content. Areas covered include renal hilum dissection, major vessel injury management, enucleation and renorrhaphy, vesicourethral anastomosis, and pyeloplasty. Limitations include the nonsystematic nature of the literature review and potential biases inherent in expert-based consensus methods.

Conclusions and clinical implications

The LUSs2 curriculum significantly advances the standardised training of laparoscopic urological skills. It offers a detailed, consensus-validated framework that addresses the need for uniformity in surgical education and aims to enhance surgical proficiency and patient care.

Patient summary

This study presents the development of a new standardised training curriculum for urological laparoscopic surgery. We intend this curriculum to improve the quality of surgical training and ensure high-quality patient care.

Perioperative outcomes and safety of valveless insufflation system in minimally invasive urological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With the rapid development of laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery, many technological innovations and improvements have emerged to optimize minimally invasive surgery and ensure minimal patient risk. Although AirSeal has been widely reported in the field of urology, its perioperative outcomes and safety in minimally invasive urological surgery remain unclear because of inconsistent levels of evidence.

OBJECTIVES

The authors performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative outcomes and safety of the valveless insufflation system (VIS) in minimally invasive urological surgery compared with the conventional insufflation system (CIS).

METHODS

The authors comprehensively searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to identify eligible studies published up to January 2024. Review Manager software (version 5.3.0) was used for the statistical analysis. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-RCTs of minimally invasive urological surgery with VIS vs CIS. The study outcomes included perioperative outcomes and safety. The authors excluded publication types, including letters, reviews, case reports, and animal and pediatric studies.

RESULTS

The authors finally identified five RCTs and eight non-RCTs in this meta-analysis. The meta- analysis indicated that the operative time was comparable between the groups ( P =0.57, I2 =91%). However, a VIS may increase blood loss ( P =0.0004, I2 =45%) and shorten hospital stays ( P <0.00001, I2 =90%). Due to the high heterogeneity of the results, the authors carefully evaluated all included studies and discovered that the studies by Bucur and Ferroni may be the sources of heterogeneity. When these two studies were excluded, heterogeneity was significantly reduced, and the operative time for VIS was significantly shorter than that for CIS ( P =0.0002). Adjusted blood loss showed no difference between the VIS and CIS groups ( P =0.10). In terms of safety, the pooled results revealed that the incidence of Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications in the VIS group was significantly lower than that in the CIS group ( P =0.02, I2 =0%). Moreover, VIS significantly reduced general pain ( P =0.02, I2 =15%) and shoulder pain ( P =0.001, I2 =0%) 12-24 h postoperatively. No significant differences were observed in total complications ( P =0.06, I2 =0%), blood transfusion ( P =0.14, I2 =0%), and subcutaneous emphysema ( P =0.96, I2 =63%) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed additional perioperative advantages of the VIS in minimally invasive urological surgery. Moreover, VIS is superior to CIS owing to less severe complication rates, general pain, and shoulder pain.

A systematic review and meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of the AirSeal system with traditional pneumoperitoneum systems in robot-assisted laparoscopic urologic surgery

This study aimed to analyze perioperative results in robot-assisted laparoscopic urological surgeries, comparing the AirSeal system with traditional pneumoperitoneum systems. This study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Extensive searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies up to June 15, 2024. A combined examination of the studies found that the AirSeal system had superior results in terms of surgery duration, end-tidal carbon dioxide levels, and tidal volume compared to the traditional pneumoperitoneum system. During robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy, the AirSeal team experienced a notable decrease in surgical time, ETCO2, and VT. In addition, the occurrence of SCE was lower in the AirSeal group. However, there were no significant differences observed between the groups regarding EBL, LOHS, overall complications, and major complications. Compared to conventional pneumoperitoneum systems, the AirSeal system offers several advantages in robot-assisted laparoscopic urological surgery: reduced operative time, lower end-tidal CO2 pressure, and decreased tidal volume. Furthermore, implementing the AirSeal system does not lead to higher rates of complications, estimated blood loss, or lengthier hospital stays.

Comparison of AirSeal versus conventional insufflation system for retroperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

AirSeal is a valve-less trocar insufflation system which is widely used in robotic urologic surgeries. More evidence is needed concerning the application and cost of AirSeal in retroperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial enrolling 62 patients who underwent retroperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy from February 2022 to February 2023 in the Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Patients were randomly assigned into AirSeal insufflation (AIS) group and conventional insufflation (CIS) group. The primary outcome was the rate of subcutaneous emphysema (SCE).

RESULTS

The SCE rate in the AIS group (12.9%) was significantly lower than that in the CIS group (35.5%) (P = 0.038). Lower maximum end-tidal carbon dioxide (CO2) (41 vs 45 mmHg, P = 0.011), PaCO2 at the end of the operation (40 vs 45 mmHg, P < 0.001), maximum tidal volume (512 vs 570 ml, P = 0.003), frequency of lens cleaning (3 vs 5, P < 0.001), pain score at 8 h (3 vs 4, P = 0.025), 12 h (2 vs 3, P = 0.029) postoperatively and at time of discharge (1 vs 2, P = 0.002) were observed in the AIS group, despite a higher hospitalization cost (68,197 vs 64658RMB, P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis identified insufflation approach was the only influencing factor for the occurrence of SCE events.

CONCLUSION

AirSeal insufflation system exhibited similar efficacy and improved safety for retroperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy than conventional insufflation system, despite an affordable increase of hospitalization costs.

Comparison of a Valveless Trocar System and Conventional Insufflation in Pediatric Urologic Surgery

Background: Conventional operative insufflation uses a one-way trocar to handle instruments while maintaining pneumoperitoneum. In 2007, the AirSeal® valveless trocar insufflation system was introduced, which maintains stable pneumoperitoneum while continuously evacuating smoke. Although this device has been validated in adult patients, it has not been extensively validated in the pediatric population. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study of pediatric urology patients aged 0 to 21 who underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty between March 2016 and October 2021 was performed. Intraoperative physiologic parameters, procedure characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and demographics of each patient in whom either AirSeal insufflation system (AIS) or conventional insufflation system (CIS) was utilized were obtained from hospital records. Data were compared across the AIS and CIS cohorts. The primary outcomes were intraoperative anesthetic and physiologic parameters, including end tidal carbon dioxide, oxygen saturation, body temperature, positive inspiratory pressure, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate. Results: There were no significant differences in the anesthetic and physiologic parameters in the AIS and CIS groups. In addition, no differences in demographics, procedural characteristics, or complication rates were found between the cohorts. Conclusion: The AirSeal valveless trocar insufflation system demonstrates comparable intraoperative anesthetic and physiologic outcomes compared to conventional one-way valve insufflation in pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Certain surgeon-related qualitative metrics are underappreciated in this study, however, including improved visualization with vigorous suctioning and pressure maintenance with frequent instrument exchanges. Surgeon experience may mask the benefits of these characteristics as it pertains to quantitative surgical outcomes such as estimated blood loss, operative time, and perioperative complications.

Comparison of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy performed with AirSeal® system vs. standard insufflator: results from a referral center

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative and oncologic surgical outcomes during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) performed by standard carbon dioxide insufflation, with those from surgeries in which the AirSeal® intelligent insufflation system was used for renal tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 27 patients with renal tumor were identified, 14 underwent LPN with AirSeal® (group A) and 13 LPN with standard insufflator (group B), respectively. Demographic baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups.

RESULTS

The size of the tumor was largest in group B (29.64 vs. 32.1 mm). The mean operative time was shorter in the AirSeal® group [group A: mean 109.0 min, median 107.5 min, interquartile range (IQR) 85; group B: mean 121.0 min, median 120.0 min, IQR 50.0]. Positive margin rates were absent in the two groups. Estimated blood loss presented a difference in the perioperative period (group A: mean 1.5 g/dL, median 1.45 g/dL; group B: mean 2.15 g/dL, median 2.2 g/dL). Time to ischemia was found to be shorter in group A with a median of 18 min compared to a median of 20 min in group B. No subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, and pneumomediastinum cases occurred in either group. A postoperative complication developed in one patient requiring superselective embolization.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, our preliminary surgical experience has shown that the LPN procedure performed with the aid of the AirSeal® intelligent insufflation system can be used to treat even medium-/high-complexity kidney lesions, with a reduction in operating times, lower rates of complications, and perioperative blood loss.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

AirSealV1.

The Role of AirSeal in Robotic Urologic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Introduction: The adoption of a valveless trocar system in robotic surgery has allowed for stable pneumoperitoneum and constant smoke evacuation. The reported benefits of this system are improved visualization, lower abdominal pressures resulting in a decrease in cardiopulmonary complications, ileus, and postoperative pain. We endeavored to perform a systematic review of the available literature on the clinical and systems-based outcomes of AirSeal™ during robotic urologic surgery. Materials and Methods: We performed this review according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Our population of interest was any patient undergoing robotic urologic surgery. Our outcomes of interest were (1) clinical effectiveness, (2) safety parameters, and (3) health system outcomes. Results: Of 83 records identified and screened at title/abstract level, 17 were examined for full-text, of which 10 studies enrolling a total of 1765 patients (cohorts ranging in size from 11 to 642 patients) were ultimately used for review. AirSeal resulted in improved respiratory parameters, specifically lower inspiratory plateau pressure, lower minute volume, lower CO2 elimination rate, low end-tidal CO2, and higher static compliance. Two studies described decreased complication rates with low pneumoperitoneum. There were mixed results regarding AirSeal effect on operative time. Conclusion: Valveless trocar technology using the AirSeal system is a valuable adjunct to current robotic urologic surgery. The established benefits include improved cardiopulmonary parameters, particularly within the steep trendelenburg position that is common in pelvic surgery. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the effects on safety and hospital system-wide outcomes.

Clinical outcomes of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in minimally invasive urological surgery

The adoption of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques has revolutionised urological practice. This necessitates a pneumoperitoneum (PNP) and the impact the PNP pressure has on post-operative outcomes is uncertain. During the current COVID-19 era guidance has suggested the utilisation of lower PNP pressures to mitigate the risk of intra-operative viral transmission. Review the current literature regarding the impact of pneumoperitoneum pressure, within the field of urology, on post-operative outcomes. A search of the PubMed, Medline and EMBASE databases was undertaken to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines were adhered to. Ten studies, that included both randomised controlled trials and retrospective case series reviews, were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The effect of PNP pressure on outcomes following prostatectomy, live donor nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy and a variety of benign upper tract procedures were discussed. Low pressure PNP appears safe when compared to high pressure PNP, potentially reducing post-operative pain and rates of ileus. When compared to general surgery, there is a lack of quality evidence investigating the impact of PNP pressures on outcomes within urology. Low pressure PNP appears non-inferior to high pressure PNP. More research is required to validate this finding, particularly post-cystectomy and nephrectomy.