Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with abdominal wall lift in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Initial experience

Low-pressure Pneumoperitoneum With Abdominal Wall Lifting Versus Standard Pressure Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Fundoplication for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the treatment results of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with abdominal wall lifting (AWL+LP, 6 mm Hg) versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (SP, 12 mm Hg) during laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), using propensity score matching (PSM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made of 362 patients, 123 in the AWL+LP group and 239 in the SP group, who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD from January 2010 to December 2017. Perioperative and prognostic outcomes were compared after PSM with 1:1 match.

RESULTS

After PSM, 107 matched pairs were obtained. Compared with the SP group at 30 and 60 minutes after pneumoperitoneal initiation, the AWL+LP group showed significantly lower end-tidal carbon dioxide value (P<0.001, <0.001, respectively), lower partial pressure of carbon dioxide value (P<0.001, 0.016, respectively) and significantly higher pH value (P<0.001, <0.001, respectively). However, postoperative shoulder pain, abdominal pain, and arrhythmia in the AWL+LP group were less than those in SP group (P=0.01, 0.017, 0.005, respectively). There was no significant difference in operative time (106.54±27.80 vs. 107.38±24.78 min), blood loss [15 mL (interquartile range: 12.5 to 20 mL) vs.15 mL (interquartile range: 10 to 20 mL)], length of stay (4 vs. 4 d), the wound ecchymosis [2 (1.87%) vs. 3 (2.80%)] and rates of recurrence [8 (7.48%) vs. 5 (4.67%)] between AWL+LP group and SP group.

CONCLUSION

AWL+LP resulted in comparable perioperative and prognostic outcomes with less impact on changes in cardiorespiratory function compared with SP approaches of laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD.

Laparoscopic experience and attitudes toward a low-cost laparoscopic system among surgeons in East, Central, and Southern Africa: a survey study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has become standard of care in high-income countries but is rarely accessible in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study assessed experience with laparoscopy and attitudes toward a low-cost laparoscopic system among surgeons in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

A survey assessing current laparoscopic practice and feedback on a low-cost laparoscopic system was administered to attendees of the College of Surgeons of East, Central, and Southern Africa (COSECSA) Scientific Conference between December 4 and December 6, 2019 in Kampala, Uganda.

RESULTS

Fifty-six surgeons from 14 countries participated. A majority were male (n = 46, 82%) general surgeons (n = 37, 66%) from tertiary/teaching hospitals (n = 36, 64%). For those with training in laparoscopy (n = 33, 59%), 22 (67%) reported less than 1 year of training and over half (n = 17, 52%) reported 1 month or less. Overall, a minority (n = 21, 38%) used laparoscopy in current practice, with 57% (n = 12) of those performing laparoscopy less than once per week. The most common laparoscopic surgeries performed were cholecystectomy (n = 15), diagnostic laparoscopy (n = 14), and appendectomy (n = 12). Few surgeons were performing more complex cases (n = 5). Barriers to laparoscopy included poor access to training equipment (n = 34, 61%), mentors (n = 33, 59%), laparoscopic equipment (n = 31, 55%), equipment maintenance (n = 25, 45%), access to consumable supplies (n = 21, 38%), and cost (n = 31, 55%). Fifty-two participants (93%) were interested in increasing their use of laparoscopy; the majority felt that a low-cost laparoscope (n = 52, 93%) and lift retractor for gasless laparoscopy (n = 46, 82%) would serve an unmet need in their practice.

CONCLUSIONS

While the use of laparoscopy is currently limited in COSECSA countries, there is a significant interest among surgeons to increase implementation. A low-cost, durable laparoscopic system was viewed as a potential solution to the current barriers and could improve implementation in LMICs.

Effect of pneumoperitoneum pressure and the depth of neuromuscular block on renal function in patients with diabetes undergoing laparoscopic pelvic surgery: study protocol for a double-blinded 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes mellitus are at a high risk of developing postoperative acute kidney injury. For patients receiving laparoscopic surgery, standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum (SPP) currently applied in clinical practice also undermines renal perfusion. Several studies have shown that low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LPP) might reduce pressure-related ischemic renal injury. However, LPP may compromise the view of the surgical field. Previous studies have indicated that deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) can ameliorate this issue. However, the conclusion is still uncertain. The hypothesis of this study is that the joint use of LPP and deep NMB can reduce perioperative renal injury in diabetic patients undergoing laparoscopic pelvic surgery without impeding the view of the surgical field.

METHODS

This is a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial using a 2 × 2 factorial trial design. A total of 648 diabetes patients scheduled for major laparoscopic pelvic surgeries at Peking Union Medical College Hospital will be randomized into the following four groups: SPP (12-15 mmHg) + deep-NMB (post-tetanic count of 1-2) group, LPP (7-10 mmHg) + deep-NMB group, SPP + moderate-NMB (train-of-four of 1-2) group, and LPP + moderate-NMB group. The primary outcome is serum cystatin C level measured before insufflation, after deflation, 24 h postoperatively, and 72 h postoperatively. The secondary outcomes are serum creatinine level, intraoperative urine output, erythrocytes in urinary sediment, renal tissue oxygen saturation, Leiden's surgical condition rating scale, surgery duration, and occurrence of bucking or body movement.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence for the effect of LPP on renal function protection in patients with diabetes undergoing laparoscopic pelvic surgery. The trial can also help us to understand whether deep NMB can improve surgical conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04259112 . Prospectively registered on 5 February 2020.

The effect of low- versus normal-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic colorectal surgery on the early quality of recovery with perioperative care according to the enhanced recovery principles (RECOVER): study protocol for a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence for the use of lower insufflation pressures during laparoscopic surgery. Deep neuromuscular blockade allows for a safe reduction in intra-abdominal pressure without compromising the quality of the surgical field. While there is considerable evidence to support superior surgical conditions during deep neuromuscular blockade, there is only a limited amount of studies investigating patient outcomes. Moreover, results are not always consistent between studies and vary between different types of laparoscopic surgery. This study will investigate the effect of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum facilitated by deep NMB on quality of recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The RECOVER study is a multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled trial consisting of 204 patients who will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to group A, low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (8 mmHg) facilitated by deep neuromuscular blockade (post tetanic count of 1-2), or group B, normal-pressure pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg) with moderate neuromuscular blockade (train-of-four response of 1-2). The primary outcome is quality of recovery on postoperative day 1, quantified by the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire.

DISCUSSION

Few studies have investigated the effect of lower insufflation pressures facilitated by deep neuromuscular blockade on patient outcomes after laparoscopic colorectal procedures. This study will identify whether low pressure pneumoperitoneum and deep neuromuscular blockade will enhance recovery after colorectal laparoscopic surgery and, moreover, if this could be a valuable addition to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2018-001485-42. Registered on April 9, 2018. Clinicaltrials.govNCT03608436. Registered on July 30, 2018.

Effect of an individualized versus standard pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy on postoperative recovery: a randomized clinical trial in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background

It remains uncertain whether individualization of pneumoperitoneum pressures during laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative recovery. This study compared an individualized pneumoperitoneum pressure (IPP) strategy with a standard pneumoperitoneum pressure (SPP) strategy with respect to postoperative recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Methods

This was a multicentre RCT. The IPP strategy comprised modified patient positioning, deep neuromuscular blockade, and abdominal wall prestretching targeting the lowest intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) that maintained acceptable workspace. The SPP strategy comprised patient positioning according to the surgeon's preference, moderate neuromuscular blockade and a fixed IAP of 12 mmHg. The primary endpoint was physiological postoperative recovery, assessed by means of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale. Secondary endpoints included recovery in other domains and overall recovery, the occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and plasma markers of inflammation up to postoperative day 3.

Results

Of 166 patients, 85 received an IPP strategy and 81 an SPP strategy. The IPP strategy was associated with a higher probability of physiological recovery (odds ratio (OR) 2·77, 95 per cent c.i. 1·19 to 6·40, P = 0·017; risk ratio (RR) 1·82, 1·79 to 1·87, P = 0·049). The IPP strategy was also associated with a higher probability of emotional (P = 0·013) and overall (P = 0·011) recovery. Intraoperative adverse events were less frequent with the IPP strategy (P &lt; 0·001) and the plasma neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio was lower (P = 0·029). Other endpoints were not affected.

Conclusion

In this cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery, an IPP strategy was associated with faster recovery, fewer intraoperative complications and less inflammation than an SPP strategy. Registration number: NCT02773173 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).