Low Pressure Pneumoperitoneum Using AirSeal® for Reduction in Postoperative Shoulder Pain Following Robot Assisted Hiatal Hernia Repair
Low Pressure Pneumoperitoneum Using AirSeal® for Reduction in Postoperative Shoulder Pain Following Robot Assisted Hiatal Hernia Repair: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
California
-
Moreno Valley, California, United States, 92555
- Riverside University Health System
-
Contact:
- Institutional Review Board Manager
- Phone Number: 951-486-4452
- Email: G.Moulton@RUHealth.org
-
Contact:
- Marcos Michelotti, MD
-
Contact:
- Lan-Anh A Nguyen, MD
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- patients undergoing elective robot assisted hiatal hernia repair
Exclusion Criteria:
- patients less than 18 years of age
- conversion to open surgery
- BMI > 40
- history of abdominoplasty
- history of chronic pain and/or opioid dependence
- history of COPD and/or supplemental oxygen use
- pregnant patients
- incarcerated patients
- patient refusal
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Prevention
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Single
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Low Pressure Pneumoperitoneum (8-10 mmHg)
Elective robot assisted hiatal hernia repair with pneumoperitoneum pressures of 8-10 mmHg throughout the case
|
Elective robot assisted hiatal hernia repair with low pressure pneumoperitoneum (8-10mmHg) with AirSeal device
Other Names:
|
|
Other: Standard Pressure Pneumoperitoneum (13-15 mmHg)
Elective robot assisted hiatal hernia repair with pneumoperitoneum pressures of 13-15 mmHg throughout the case
|
Elective robot assisted hiatal hernia repair with standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (13- 15 mmHg) with AirSeal device
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Reduction in post-operative shoulder pain
Time Frame: 1 week (on average)
|
Percentage reduction in post-operative shoulder pain from POD#0 to ~1 week post-operative telephone appointment
|
1 week (on average)
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Severity of postoperative shoulder pain on POD #0
Time Frame: 6 hours (on average)
|
Severity of postoperative shoulder pain on POD #0 (recorded at nursing shift change ~7PM)
|
6 hours (on average)
|
|
Severity of postoperative shoulder pain on POD #1
Time Frame: 18 hours (on average)
|
Severity of postoperative shoulder pain on POD #1 (when surgical team rounds ~6-8AM)
|
18 hours (on average)
|
|
Severity of postoperative shoulder pain at ~1 week
Time Frame: 1 week (on average)
|
Severity of postoperative shoulder pain at ~1 week post-operative telephone appointment
|
1 week (on average)
|
|
Severity of postoperative shoulder pain at ~2 weeks post-op
Time Frame: 2 weeks (on average)
|
Severity of postoperative shoulder pain at ~2 week postoperative clinic visit measured by numeric pain rating scale and morphine milligram equivalents
|
2 weeks (on average)
|
|
length of hospital stay
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 2 years
|
length of hospital stay
|
through study completion, an average of 2 years
|
|
readmission rates for shoulder pain
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 2 years
|
readmission rates for chief complaint of shoulder pain
|
through study completion, an average of 2 years
|
|
number of postoperative clinic visits related to shoulder pain management
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 2 years
|
number of postoperative clinic visits related to shoulder pain management
|
through study completion, an average of 2 years
|
|
discharge disposition
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 2 years
|
discharge disposition (home, SNF, rehab, etc)
|
through study completion, an average of 2 years
|
|
standard vs extended narcotic regimen
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 2 years
|
standard vs extended (requiring refill) narcotic regimen
|
through study completion, an average of 2 years
|
|
quality of life
Time Frame: 1 week (on average)
|
quality of life assessed via EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS questionnaires
|
1 week (on average)
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Joshipura VP, Haribhakti SP, Patel NR, Naik RP, Soni HN, Patel B, Bhavsar MS, Narwaria MB, Thakker R. A prospective randomized, controlled study comparing low pressure versus high pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009 Jun;19(3):234-40. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181a97012.
- Yasir M, Mehta KS, Banday VH, Aiman A, Masood I, Iqbal B. Evaluation of post operative shoulder tip pain in low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgeon. 2012 Apr;10(2):71-4. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2011.02.003. Epub 2011 Mar 21.
- Wallace DH, Serpell MG, Baxter JN, O'Dwyer PJ. Randomized trial of different insufflation pressures for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1997 Apr;84(4):455-8.
- Hua J, Gong J, Yao L, Zhou B, Song Z. Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2014 Jul;208(1):143-50. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.09.027. Epub 2014 Jan 16.
- Sroussi J, Elies A, Rigouzzo A, Louvet N, Mezzadri M, Fazel A, Benifla JL. Low pressure gynecological laparoscopy (7mmHg) with AirSeal(R) System versus a standard insufflation (15mmHg): A pilot study in 60 patients. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017 Feb;46(2):155-158. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2016.09.003. Epub 2017 Jan 30.
- Topcu HO, Cavkaytar S, Kokanali K, Guzel AI, Islimye M, Doganay M. A prospective randomized trial of postoperative pain following different insufflation pressures during gynecologic laparoscopy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Nov;182:81-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.09.003. Epub 2014 Sep 16.
- Sarli L, Costi R, Sansebastiano G, Trivelli M, Roncoroni L. Prospective randomized trial of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum for reduction of shoulder-tip pain following laparoscopy. Br J Surg. 2000 Sep;87(9):1161-5. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01507.x.
- Foley CE, Ryan E, Huang JQ. Less is more: clinical impact of decreasing pneumoperitoneum pressures during robotic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2021 Apr;15(2):299-307. doi: 10.1007/s11701-020-01104-4. Epub 2020 Jun 22.
- Gurusamy KS, Vaughan J, Davidson BR. Low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 18;2014(3):CD006930. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006930.pub3.
- Luketina R, Luketina TLH, Antoniou SA, Kohler G, Konneker S, Manzenreiter L, Wundsam H, Koch OO, Knauer M, Emmanuel K. Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO2 pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal(R). Surg Endosc. 2021 Jul;35(7):3670-3678. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07846-4. Epub 2020 Aug 7.
- Buda A, Di Martino G, Borghese M, Restaino S, Surace A, Puppo A, Paracchini S, Ferrari D, Perotto S, Novelli A, De Ponti E, Borghi C, Fanfani F, Fruscio R. Low-Pressure Laparoscopy Using the AirSeal System versus Standard Insufflation in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study (ARIEL Study). Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Mar 14;10(3):531. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10030531.
- Saway JP, McCaul M, Mulekar MS, McMahon DP, Richards WO. Review of Outcomes of Low Verses Standard Pressure Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery. Am Surg. 2022 Aug;88(8):1832-1837. doi: 10.1177/00031348221084956. Epub 2022 Apr 20.
- O'Connor SC, Mallard M, Desai SS, Couto F, Gottlieb M, Ewing A, Cobb WS, Carbonell AM, Warren JA. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Approach to Hiatal Hernia Repair: Results After 7 Years of Robotic Experience. Am Surg. 2020 Sep;86(9):1083-1087. doi: 10.1177/0003134820943547. Epub 2020 Aug 18.
Helpful Links
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Estimated)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 2068123-1
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.