Literature DB >> 19632600

Intraperitoneal gas insufflation will be required for laparoscopic visualization in space: a comparison of laparoscopic techniques in weightlessness.

Andrew W Kirkpatrick1, Marilyn Keaney, Leanne Kmet, Chad G Ball, Mark R Campbell, Chris Kindratsky, Michelle Groleau, Michelle Tyssen, Jennifer Keyte, Timothy J Broderick.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery (LS) is contemplated during long duration space flight, but it typically necessitates intraabdominal hypertension (IAH) from insufflation to create a surgical domain. Because there are spontaneous changes in abdominal wall behavior in weightlessness (0g) that have been previously suggested to increase LS visualization, we studied the comparative laparoscopic visualization between gasless (noGAS), abdominal wall retraction (AWR), and standard 15 mmHg gas insufflation (GAS) during weightlessness. STUDY
DESIGN: In-flight LS was performed on four anesthetized pigs during weightlessness obtained through parabolic flight in a research aircraft. GAS was studied during 27 parabolas and compared with 20 parabolas using AWR-LS and 12 with noGAS. Pelvic visualization was scored in real time during flight by 2 or 3 surgeons per parabola and postflight through review of compiled digital video disk (DVD) images by 29 independent reviewers. Physical measurements of the sagittal (anterior-posterior) and transverse dimensions of anesthetized pigs were recorded during 39 parabolas.
RESULTS: Despite consistent increases in the sagittal abdominal dimension in weightlessness (GAS and noGAS), on-board scored visualization in 0g was unchanged for noGAS (p=0.78) and decreased during AWR (p=0.09), compared with 1g. Although AWR was considered feasible in 1g, spontaneous visceral movements reduced the surgical domain in 0g. Neither AWR nor noGAS was believed safe. But visualization during GAS in 0g was increased over that in 1g (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Both noGAS and AWR are impractical in weightlessness. Gas insufflation will be required. With insufflation, visualization and perceived ability to perform LS was improved by weightlessness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19632600     DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.03.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  5 in total

Review 1.  Prophylactic surgery prior to extended-duration space flight: is the benefit worth the risk?

Authors:  Chad G Ball; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; David R Williams; Jeffrey A Jones; J D Polk; James M Vanderploeg; Mark A Talamini; Mark R Campbell; Timothy J Broderick
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Reduced-gravity environment hardware demonstrations of a prototype miniaturized flow cytometer and companion microfluidic mixing technology.

Authors:  William S Phipps; Zhizhong Yin; Candice Bae; Julia Z Sharpe; Andrew M Bishara; Emily S Nelson; Aaron S Weaver; Daniel Brown; Terri L McKay; DeVon Griffin; Eugene Y Chan
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 3.  Facing Trauma and Surgical Emergency in Space: Hemorrhagic Shock.

Authors:  D Pantalone; O Chiara; S Henry; S Cimbanassi; S Gupta; T Scalea
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-07-01

Review 4.  A New Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery: Progress and Development of Major Technical Innovations in General Surgery Over the Last Decade.

Authors:  Manjunath Siddaiah-Subramanya; Kor Woi Tiang; Masimba Nyandowe
Journal:  Surg J (N Y)       Date:  2017-11-09

Review 5.  Robot-assisted surgery in space: pros and cons. A review from the surgeon's point of view.

Authors:  Desirè Pantalone; Giulia Satu Faini; Francesca Cialdai; Elettra Sereni; Stefano Bacci; Daniele Bani; Marco Bernini; Carlo Pratesi; PierLuigi Stefàno; Lorenzo Orzalesi; Michele Balsamo; Valfredo Zolesi; Monica Monici
Journal:  NPJ Microgravity       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 4.415

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.