Low vs Standard Pressures in Gynecologic Laparoscopy: a Systematic Review

Esther B Kyle, Sarah Maheux-Lacroix, Amélie Boutin, Philippe Y Laberge, Madeleine Lemyre, Esther B Kyle, Sarah Maheux-Lacroix, Amélie Boutin, Philippe Y Laberge, Madeleine Lemyre

Abstract

Background: The optimal intraperitoneal pressure during laparoscopy is not known. Recent literature found benefits of using lower pressures, but the safety of doing abdominal surgery with low peritoneal pressures needs to be assessed. This systematic review compares low with standard pneumoperitoneum during gynecologic laparoscopy.

Database: We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing intraperitoneal pressures during gynecologic laparoscopy. Two authors reviewed references and extracted data from included trials. Risk ratios, mean differences, and standard mean differences were calculated and pooled using RevMan5. Of 2251 studies identified, three were included in the systematic review, for a total of 238 patients. We found a statistically significant but modest diminution in postoperative pain of 0.38 standardized unit based on an original 10-point scale (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.67 to -0.08) during the immediate postoperative period when using low intraperitoneal pressure of 8 mm Hg compared with ≥ 12 mm Hg and of 0.50 (95% CI, -0.80 to -0.21) 24 hours after the surgery. Lower pressures were associated with worse visualization of the surgical field (risk ratio, 10.31; 95% CI, 1.29-82.38). We found no difference between groups over blood loss, duration of surgery, hospital length of stay, or the need for increased pressure.

Conclusion: Low intraperitoneal pressures during gynecologic laparoscopy cannot be recommended on the behalf of this review because improvement in pain scores is minimal and visualization of the surgical field is affected. The safety of this intervention as well as cost-effectiveness considerations need to be further studied.

Keywords: Artificial pneumoperitoneum; Gynecology; Laparoscopy; Pain; Safety.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow diagram.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Abdominal pain ≤ 6 h after surgery.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Abdominal pain 24 h after surgery.

References

    1. Neudecker J, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E, Bergamaschi R, Bonjer HJ, Cuschieri A, et al. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery clinical practice guideline on the pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(7):1121–1143. doi:.
    1. la Chapelle CF, Bemelman WA, Rademaker BM, van Barneveld TA, Jansen FW. A multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline for minimally invasive surgery: Part 1: entry techniques and the pneumoperitoneum. Gynecol Surg. 2012;9(3):271–282.
    1. Galizia G, Prizio G, Lieto E, Castellano P, Pelosio L, Imperatore V, et al. Hemodynamic and pulmonary changes during open, carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum and abdominal wall-lifting cholecystectomy. A prospective, randomized study. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(5):477–483. doi:.
    1. Leonard IE, Cunningham AJ. Anaesthetic considerations for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2002;16(1):1–20.
    1. Henny CP, Hofland J. Laparoscopic surgery: pitfalls due to anesthesia, positioning, and pneumoperitoneum. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(9):1163–1171. doi:.
    1. Wallace DH, Serpell MG, Baxter JN, O'Dwyer PJ. Randomized trial of different insufflation pressures for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1997;84(4):455–458.
    1. 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;87(9):1161–1165. doi:.
    1. Chok KS, Yuen WK, Lau H, Fan ST. Prospective randomized trial on low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2006;16(6):383–386. doi:.
    1. 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;208(1):143–150. doi:.
    1. Gurusamy KS, Vaughan J, Davidson BR. Low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;3:Cd006930 doi:.
    1. Ozdemir-van Brunschot DM, van Laarhoven KC, Scheffer GJ, Pouwels S, Wever KE, Warle MC. What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2015. doi:.
    1. Angioli R, Terranova C, Plotti F, Cafa EV, Gennari P, Ricciardi R, et al. Influence of pneumoperitoneum pressure on surgical field during robotic and laparoscopic surgery: a comparative study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(4):865–868. doi:.
    1. Hirvonen EA, Nuutinen LS, Kauko M. Hemodynamic changes due to Trendelenburg positioning and pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic hysterectomy. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 1995;39(7):949–955.
    1. Hirvonen EA, Poikolainen EO, Paakkonen ME, Nuutinen LS. The adverse hemodynamic effects of anesthesia, head-up tilt, and carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(3):272–277.
    1. Rist M, Hemmerling TM, Rauh R, Siebzehnrubl E, Jacobi KE. Influence of pneumoperitoneum and patient positioning on preload and splanchnic blood volume in laparoscopic surgery of the lower abdomen. J Clin Anesth. 2001;13(4):244–249.
    1. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg (London, England). 2010;8(5):336–341. doi:.
    1. Kyle EB, Maheux-Lacroix S, Boutin A, Lemyre M. Complications of low compared to standard pneumoperitoneum pressures in laparoscopic surgery for benign gynecologic pathology: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2015;4:96 doi:.
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso-Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. J Med Library Assoc: JMLA. 2006;94(2):130–136.
    1. Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Comparison of top-performing search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies and systematic reviews in MEDLINE and EMBASE. J Med Library Assoc: JMLA. 2006;94(4):451–455.
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2011;343:d5928 doi:.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2003;327(7414):557–560. doi:.
    1. Bogani G, Uccella S, Cromi A, Serati M, Casarin J, Pinelli C, et al. Low vs standard pneumoperitoneum pressure during laparoscopic hysterectomy: prospective randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(3):466–471. doi:.
    1. Kim DK, Cheong ILY, Lee GY, Cho JH. Low pressure (8 mm Hg) pneumoperitoneum does not reduce the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following gynecologic laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2006.
    1. Topçu HO, Cavcaytar S, Kokanalı 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;182:81–85.
    1. Gurusamy KS, Nagendran M, Toon CD, Guerrini GP, Zinnuroglu M, Davidson BR. Methods of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;3:CD009060 doi:.
    1. Guidelines for laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surgical Endosc. 1998;12(2):189–190.
    1. Hirvonen EA, Nuutinen LS, Kauko M. Hemodynamic changes due to Trendelenburg positioning and pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic hysterectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1995;39(7):949–955.
    1. Fuentes MN, Rodriguez-Oliver A, Naveiro Rilo JC, Paredes AG, Aguilar Romero MT, Parra JF. Complications of laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. JSLS. 2014;18(3). doi:.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir