Literature DB >> 25280837

Impact of a lung-protective ventilatory strategy on systemic and pulmonary inflammatory responses during laparoscopic surgery: is it really helpful?

Serdar Kokulu1, Ersin Günay, Elif Doğan Baki, Sevinc Sarinc Ulasli, Mehmet Yilmazer, Buğra Koca, Dagistan Tolga Arıöz, Yüksel Ela, Remziye Gül Sivaci.   

Abstract

Laparoscopic surgery is performed by carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, but this may induce stress responses. The aim of this study is to compare the level of inflammatory mediators in patients receiving low tidal volume (VT) versus traditional VT during gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Forty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status 1 and 2 subjects older than 18 years old undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery were included. Systemic inflammatory response was assessed with serum IL-6, TNF-alpha, IL-8, and IL-1β in patients receiving intraoperative low VT and traditional VT during laparoscopic surgery [within the first 5 min after endotracheal intubation (T1), 60 min after the initiation of mechanical ventilation (T2), and in the postanesthesia care unit 30 min after tracheal extubation (T3)]. Additionally, inflammatory response was assessed with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) at T1 and T3 periods. An increase in the serum levels of IL-6, TNF-alpha, IL-8, and IL-1β was observed in both groups during the time periods of T1, T2, and T3. No significant differences were found in the serum and BAL levels of inflammatory mediators during time periods between groups. The results of the present study suggested that the lung-protective ventilation and traditional strategies are not different in terms of lung injury and inflammatory response during conventional laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25280837     DOI: 10.1007/s10753-014-0039-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Inflammation        ISSN: 0360-3997            Impact factor:   4.092


  23 in total

1.  Carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum induces systemic oxidative stress: a clinical study.

Authors:  Turhan Aran; Mesut A Unsal; Suleyman Guven; Cavit Kart; Esra Can Cetin; Ahmet Alver
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2011-12-03       Impact factor: 2.435

2.  Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  M B Amato; C S Barbas; D M Medeiros; R B Magaldi; G P Schettino; G Lorenzi-Filho; R A Kairalla; D Deheinzelin; C Munoz; R Oliveira; T Y Takagaki; C R Carvalho
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-02-05       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Comparison of the stress response in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery using carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum or abdominal wall-lifting methods.

Authors:  Chuanbao Han; Zhengnian Ding; Jin Fan; Jie Sun; Yanning Qian
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 1.878

Review 4.  Atelectasis in the perioperative patient.

Authors:  Michelle Duggan; Brian P Kavanagh
Journal:  Curr Opin Anaesthesiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.706

5.  Effect of mechanical ventilation on inflammatory mediators in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  V M Ranieri; P M Suter; C Tortorella; R De Tullio; J M Dayer; A Brienza; F Bruno; A S Slutsky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-07-07       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure prevents pulmonary inflammation in patients without preexisting lung injury.

Authors:  Esther K Wolthuis; Goda Choi; Mark C Dessing; Paul Bresser; Rene Lutter; Misa Dzoljic; Tom van der Poll; Margreeth B Vroom; Markus Hollmann; Marcus J Schultz
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  Effects of protective and conventional mechanical ventilation on pulmonary function and systemic cytokine release after cardiopulmonary bypass.

Authors:  Ozge Koner; Serdar Celebi; Huriye Balci; Gurkan Cetin; Kamil Karaoglu; Nahit Cakar
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2004-01-13       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 8.  What tidal volumes should be used in patients without acute lung injury?

Authors:  Marcus J Schultz; Jack J Haitsma; Arthur S Slutsky; Ognjen Gajic
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 7.892

9.  Low tidal volume and high positive end-expiratory pressure mechanical ventilation results in increased inflammation and ventilator-associated lung injury in normal lungs.

Authors:  Caron M Hong; Da-Zhong Xu; Qi Lu; Yunhui Cheng; Vadim Pisarenko; Danielle Doucet; Margaret Brown; Seena Aisner; Chunxiang Zhang; Edwin A Deitch; Ellise Delphin
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2010-01-26       Impact factor: 5.108

10.  Airway closure: the silent killer of peripheral airways.

Authors:  Paolo Pelosi; Patricia R M Rocco
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  4 in total

1.  [Pathogenic role leukotriene B4 in lung injury induced by lung-protective mechanical ventilation in rabbits].

Authors:  Lingyue Yuan; Jiang Li; Yong Yang; Xin Guo; Xingling Liu; Lisha Li; Xiaoyan Zhu; Rui Liu
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2020-10-30

Review 2.  Intraoperative use of low volume ventilation to decrease postoperative mortality, mechanical ventilation, lengths of stay and lung injury in adults without acute lung injury.

Authors:  Joanne Guay; Edward A Ochroch; Sandra Kopp
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-07-09

3.  Intraoperative low tidal volume ventilation strategy has no benefits during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Vandna Arora; Asha Tyagi; Surendra Kumar; Aanchal Kakkar; Shukla Das
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2017 Jan-Mar

4.  Volume-Controlled Versus Dual-Controlled Ventilation during Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy with Steep Trendelenburg Position: A Randomized-Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jin Ha Park; In Kyeong Park; Seung Ho Choi; Darhae Eum; Min-Soo Kim
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 4.241

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.