Joanna M Dion1, Chris McKee1, Joseph D Tobias1, Paul Sohner1, Daniel Herz2, Steven Teich3, Julie Rice1, N' Diris Barry1, Marc Michalsky3. 1. Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital and The Ohio State University 700 Children's Drive, Columbus 43205, Ohio, US. 2. Department of Urology , Nationwide Children's Hospital and The Ohio State University 700 Children's Drive, Columbus 43205, Ohio, US. 3. Department of Surgery, Nationwide Children's Hospital and The Ohio State University 700 Children's Drive, Columbus 43205, Ohio, US.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Managing ventilation and oxygenation during laparoscopic procedures in severely obese patients undergoing weight loss surgery presents many challenges. Pressure-controlled ventilation, volume-guaranteed (PCV-VG) is a dual-control mode of ventilation and an alternative to pressure (PC) or volume (VC) controlled ventilation. PCV-VG features a user-selected tidal volume target, that is auto-regulated and pressure controlled. We hypothesized that PCV-VG ventilation would provide improved oxygenation and ventilation during laparoscopic bariatric surgery with a lower peak inflating pressure (PIP) than either PC or VC ventilation. METHODS: This was a prospective cross-over cohort trial (n = 20). In random sequence each patient received the three modes of ventilation for 20 minutes during the laparoscopic portion of the procedure. For all modes of ventilation the goal tidal volume was 6-8 mL/kg, and the respiratory rate was adjusted to achieve normocarbia. The PIP, exhaled tidal volume, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded every five minutes. At the end of 20 minutes, an arterial blood gas was obtained. Data were analyzed using a paired t-test. RESULTS: PCV-VG and PC ventilation both resulted in significantly lower PIP (cmH2O) than VC ventilation (30.5 ± 3.0, 31.6 ± 4.9, and 36.3 ± 3.4 mmHg respectively; p < 0.01 for PCV-VG vs. VC and PC vs. VC). There was no difference in oxygenation (PaO2), ventilation (PaCO2) or hemodynamic variables between the three ventilation modes. CONCLUSIONS: In adolescents and young adults undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery, PCV-VG and PC were superior to VC ventilation in their ability to provide ventilation with the lowest PIP.
INTRODUCTION: Managing ventilation and oxygenation during laparoscopic procedures in severely obesepatients undergoing weight loss surgery presents many challenges. Pressure-controlled ventilation, volume-guaranteed (PCV-VG) is a dual-control mode of ventilation and an alternative to pressure (PC) or volume (VC) controlled ventilation. PCV-VG features a user-selected tidal volume target, that is auto-regulated and pressure controlled. We hypothesized that PCV-VG ventilation would provide improved oxygenation and ventilation during laparoscopic bariatric surgery with a lower peak inflating pressure (PIP) than either PC or VC ventilation. METHODS: This was a prospective cross-over cohort trial (n = 20). In random sequence each patient received the three modes of ventilation for 20 minutes during the laparoscopic portion of the procedure. For all modes of ventilation the goal tidal volume was 6-8 mL/kg, and the respiratory rate was adjusted to achieve normocarbia. The PIP, exhaled tidal volume, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded every five minutes. At the end of 20 minutes, an arterial blood gas was obtained. Data were analyzed using a paired t-test. RESULTS: PCV-VG and PC ventilation both resulted in significantly lower PIP (cmH2O) than VC ventilation (30.5 ± 3.0, 31.6 ± 4.9, and 36.3 ± 3.4 mmHg respectively; p < 0.01 for PCV-VG vs. VC and PC vs. VC). There was no difference in oxygenation (PaO2), ventilation (PaCO2) or hemodynamic variables between the three ventilation modes. CONCLUSIONS: In adolescents and young adults undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery, PCV-VG and PC were superior to VC ventilation in their ability to provide ventilation with the lowest PIP.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bariatric surgery; adolescent; arterial blood gas analysis; obesity; ventilation
Authors: Aaron S Kelly; Sarah E Barlow; Goutham Rao; Thomas H Inge; Laura L Hayman; Julia Steinberger; Elaine M Urbina; Linda J Ewing; Stephen R Daniels Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Hesham F Talab; Ibrahim Ali Zabani; Hassan Saad Abdelrahman; Waleed L Bukhari; Irfan Mamoun; Majed A Ashour; Bakr Bin Sadeq; Sameh Ibrahim El Sayed Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: L E C De Baerdemaeker; C Van der Herten; J M Gillardin; P Pattyn; E P Mortier; L L Szegedi Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: N T Nguyen; J T Anderson; M Budd; N W Fleming; H S Ho; J Jahr; C M Stevens; B M Wolfe Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2003-11-21 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Gregory A Hans; Audrey A Prégaldien; Abdourahamane Kaba; Thierry M Sottiaux; Arnaud DeRoover; Maurice L Lamy; Jean L Joris Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Ana Fernandez-Bustamante; Soshi Hashimoto; Ary Serpa Neto; Pierre Moine; Marcos F Vidal Melo; John E Repine Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 2.217