Literature DB >> 28442985

Why should a "gasless" oncologic robotic procedure be performed?

Fabrizio Dal Moro1, Angelo Mangano2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 28442985      PMCID: PMC5389265          DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_53_17

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth


× No keyword cloud information.
Sir, In this paper,[1] the authors describe a challenging approach during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP)performing the procedure without gas insufflation and using (after the “docking” of robot) a so-called “tenting of the abdominal wall.” They demonstrate that this technique reduces the peak airway pressure while maintaining an adequate intra-abdominal space. This work is particularly interesting for both its anesthesiologic and oncologic impacts. During laparoendoscopy, carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation into peritoneal (and extraperitoneal) cavities produces a wide range of pathophysiological hemodynamic changes. Vigilance in monitoring and diligence in management are essential to prevent complications because CO2 absorption may lead to hypercapnia and acidosis. Clearance of CO2 is related to adequate alveolar ventilation: CO2 absorbed through the peritoneum is eliminated by respiratory exchange in the lungs, and a rapid increase in CO2 levels may be compensated by hyperventilation of the lungs. While the patient is under general anesthesia, minute ventilation volumes must be increased to maintain normocarbia. There are some situations associated with an increased CO2 absorption, such as the extraperitoneal approach during RARP as we recently demonstrated.[2] Although the increase in PaCO2 is not fully compensated by hyperventilation, most healthy patients can easily adapt to the increase in end-tidal CO2. However, some are unable to tolerate the increased CO2 load during insufflation, and this condition may lead to myocardial depression and vasodilation. The patient counteracts these effects by centrally mediated sympathetic stimulation, which causes persistent increases in blood pressure and heart rate, increasing catecholamine concentrations.[3] In addition, the pneumoperitoneum, as a consequence of direct compression of the diaphragm, leads to a significant reduction in forced expiratory volume, peak expiratory flow, and forced vital capacity, with a consequent decrease in pulmonary compliance.[4] For all the points mentioned above, RARP is associated with various anesthesiologic challenges due to pneumoperitoneum and “tenting” can be helpful in improving ventilation and reducing complications of high peak airway pressure above all in men with an impaired cardiopulmonary function, such as in broncopneumopatic or cardiopatic patients. While in our department, we are used to performing completely gasless procedures during some robotic interventions, such as pyeloplasty and hysterosacropexy, it is not always possible to conclude all the steps of RARP because the risk of massive bleeding, above all during the dissection of Santorini venous complex or during complete nerve-sparing lateral dissection of the prostate: in these cases, sometimes, it is necessary to restart the CO2 insufflation until the closure of venous vessels. From the oncological point of view, there are some concerns about the possible role of gas insufflation during laparoscopic/robotic procedures to treat (urological) cancers in the seeding of neoplastic cells. Indeed, tumor spillage is a phenomenon observed after laparoscopic surgical manipulation for both benign and malignant diseases, and it is usually a result of dissemination and concomitant implantation of neoplastic cells on the peritoneal surface.[5] In literature, port-site metastasis or peritoneal spread after laparoscopic surgery for urological malignancies is a rare occurrence accounting for 0.09% and 0.03% of the cases, respectively.[6] Although the etiology of this phenomenon is not clearly understood, different factors have been implicated, such as the aggressiveness and the type of tumor, host immune response and local processes, and (last, but not least) laparoscopic/robotic-related factors. Although there is no doubt that a poor surgical technique with traumatic manipulation of cancer (surgical manipulation, tumor handling, morcellation, specimen removal methods,…) may violate the boundaries of the tumor, consequently promoting seeding, the mechanism involved in cancer cell wounds or peritoneal implantation is uncertain. One possible explanation is gas insufflation.[7] The use of “gasless” laparoscopy/robotic technique, to reduce the risk of wound or peritoneal metastasis, has been suggested since the ‘90s;[8] however, further multicentric studies are needed to confirm or not the role of the pneumoperitoneum in cancer seeding.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.
  8 in total

1.  Pulmonary function after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy.

Authors:  S Hasukić; D Mesić; E Dizdarević; D Keser; S Hadziselimović; M Bazardzanović
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-10-19       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Gasless laparoscopy may reduce the risk of port-site metastases following laparascopic tumor surgery.

Authors:  D I Watson; G Mathew; T Ellis; C F Baigrie; A M Rofe; G G Jamieson
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1997-02

Review 3.  Port site metastases in urological laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Alexander Tsivian; A Ami Sidi
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Comparative study of low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy--a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Deepaesh Benjamin Kanwer; Lileswar Kaman; M Nedounsejiane; Bikash Medhi; Ganga Ram Verma; Indu Bala
Journal:  Trop Gastroenterol       Date:  2009 Jul-Sep

5.  Leiomyomatosis peritonealis disseminata and subcutaneous myoma--a rare complication of laparoscopic myomectomy.

Authors:  Yee Liang Thian; Kok Hian Tan; Jin Wei Kwek; Junjie Wang; Bernard Chern; Kwai Lam Yam
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2009 Mar-Apr

6.  Tumor seeding incidentally found two years after robotic-Assisted radical nephrectomy for papillary renal cell carcinoma. A case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Achilles Ploumidis; Theodoros Panoskaltsis; Theophani Gavresea; Petros Yiannou; Niki Yiannakou; Kitty Pavlakis
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2013-03-29

7.  Anesthesiologic effects of transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results of a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Fabrizio Dal Moro; Alessandro Crestani; Claudio Valotto; Andrea Guttilla; Rodolfo Soncin; Angelo Mangano; Filiberto Zattoni
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

8.  An observational study: Effects of tenting of the abdominal wall on peak airway pressure in robotic radical prostatectomy surgery.

Authors:  Avinash Sahebarav Kakde; Harshal D Wagh
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep
  8 in total
  2 in total

1.  Gasless robotic perineal radical prostatectomy: An initial experience.

Authors:  Ali İhsan Taşçı; Abdulmuttalip Şimşek; Emre Şam; Kamil Gökhan Şeker; Feyzi Arda Atar; Selçuk Şahin; Volkan Tuğcu
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-11-21

2.  The 'prostate-muscle index': a simple pelvic cavity measurement predicting estimated blood loss and console time in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Naoki Kimura; Yuta Yamada; Yuta Takeshima; Masafumi Otsuka; Nobuhiko Akamatsu; Yuji Hakozaki; Jimpei Miyakawa; Yusuke Sato; Yoshiyuki Akiyama; Daisuke Yamada; Tetsuya Fujimura; Haruki Kume
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 4.996

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.