OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of complications and the incidence of open- versus closed-entry (either by Veress needle or first trocar) technique in gynecologic laparoscopy in The Netherlands. STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire analysis of members of the Dutch Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy and Minimal Invasive Surgery was combined with a Medline literature search. Data related to complications on entry from January 1,1997, through December 31, 2001, were collected by questionnaire and were separated into group I (Veress needle or first trocar) and group II (open-entry technique). The number of laparoscopy procedures, years of experience, and indications to perform the chosen entry technique were collected. RESULTS: Response rate was 98%. The procedures were performed by 187 gynecologists in 74 hospitals (72%) in The Netherlands. Groups I and II were comparable to each other, with respect to type of clinic (teaching vs nonteaching hospital), the number of procedures, and the experience of gynecologists. One hundred six gynecologists (57%) used only the closed-entry technique. This group reported 31 complications (0.1%) in 31,532 procedures. Even in the case of patients who were at risk for entry-related complications (previous laparotomy, obesity), pneumoperitoneum was established by the closed-entry technique. However, most gynecologists used an alternative insufflation point (eg, Palmer's point). The remaining 81 gynecologists used both entry techniques. However, the open-entry technique was used on special indications and in only 2.0% of cases (range: 1-20%). These special indications were suspected adhesions or previous laparotomy (90%) and obese (7%) or very thin patients (3%). These 81 gynecologists reported 20,027 closed-entry procedures and 579 open-entry procedures and complication rates of 0.12% and 1.38%, respectively (P<.001). Significantly more visceral lesions were found (P<.001) at open-entry technique in group II. Our literature search showed a calculated average entry complication rate for the closed-entry technique for visceral and vascular lesions of 0.44 of 1000 procedures and 0.31 of 1000 procedures, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although 43% of the gynecologists in this study performed the open-entry technique in laparoscopy, Dutch gynecologists seldom use this technique. When it is performed in selected patients, the number of complications is not reduced necessarily. In contrast to published data of general surgeons' findings, the number of entry-related complications in the open technique was significantly higher than the closed-entry technique. There is no evidence to abandon the closed-entry technique in laparoscopy. However, the selection of patients for an open- or alternative-entry procedure is still recommended.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of complications and the incidence of open- versus closed-entry (either by Veress needle or first trocar) technique in gynecologic laparoscopy in The Netherlands. STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire analysis of members of the Dutch Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy and Minimal Invasive Surgery was combined with a Medline literature search. Data related to complications on entry from January 1,1997, through December 31, 2001, were collected by questionnaire and were separated into group I (Veress needle or first trocar) and group II (open-entry technique). The number of laparoscopy procedures, years of experience, and indications to perform the chosen entry technique were collected. RESULTS: Response rate was 98%. The procedures were performed by 187 gynecologists in 74 hospitals (72%) in The Netherlands. Groups I and II were comparable to each other, with respect to type of clinic (teaching vs nonteaching hospital), the number of procedures, and the experience of gynecologists. One hundred six gynecologists (57%) used only the closed-entry technique. This group reported 31 complications (0.1%) in 31,532 procedures. Even in the case of patients who were at risk for entry-related complications (previous laparotomy, obesity), pneumoperitoneum was established by the closed-entry technique. However, most gynecologists used an alternative insufflation point (eg, Palmer's point). The remaining 81 gynecologists used both entry techniques. However, the open-entry technique was used on special indications and in only 2.0% of cases (range: 1-20%). These special indications were suspected adhesions or previous laparotomy (90%) and obese (7%) or very thin patients (3%). These 81 gynecologists reported 20,027 closed-entry procedures and 579 open-entry procedures and complication rates of 0.12% and 1.38%, respectively (P<.001). Significantly more visceral lesions were found (P<.001) at open-entry technique in group II. Our literature search showed a calculated average entry complication rate for the closed-entry technique for visceral and vascular lesions of 0.44 of 1000 procedures and 0.31 of 1000 procedures, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although 43% of the gynecologists in this study performed the open-entry technique in laparoscopy, Dutch gynecologists seldom use this technique. When it is performed in selected patients, the number of complications is not reduced necessarily. In contrast to published data of general surgeons' findings, the number of entry-related complications in the open technique was significantly higher than the closed-entry technique. There is no evidence to abandon the closed-entry technique in laparoscopy. However, the selection of patients for an open- or alternative-entry procedure is still recommended.
Authors: Jan Wind; Jan E L Cremers; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Dirk J Gouma; Frank-Willem Jansen; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-04-05 Impact factor: 4.584