Literature DB >> 28643058

Prospective, randomized comparison of the use of FloShield Air System® versus the reference technique (water + povidone-iodine solution) during gynecologic endoscopic surgery to evaluate the operative lens vision quality.

S Bendifallah1,2,3, E Salakos4, I Naoura4, P Aristizabal4, E Furet4, S Zilberman4, M Ballester4,5, E Darai4,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The FloShield Air System® is a new device for laparoscopic surgery that utilizes a continuous dry CO2 gas flow over the scope to defog the lens and protect it from condensation, debris and smoke. We set out to compare the performance and efficiency of the device in terms of operative lens vision quality (OLVQ) with the reference technique (water + povidone-iodine (PVI) solution) during gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center randomized prospective study between March and June 2016 (Trials Database Registration NCT02702531) including 53 patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery with water + PVI solution and 51 patients who underwent surgical procedures with the FloShield Air System. The primary outcome measure was the number of laparoscope removals during surgery. Secondary outcome measures were the time to clean, assessment of the quality of vision, the correlation between the laparoscopic surgical complexity and outcomes, and cost effectiveness.
RESULTS: Overall, the mean patient age was 43.2 years (range 22-86) and body mass index 24.8 (range 16.8-42.7). The mean number of endoscope removals during surgery was 7.0 (range 0-37) in the water + PVI solution arm and 2.8 (range 0-12) in the FloShield Air System® arm. The number of removals was significantly lower in the FloShield arm (p < 0.001). No difference in time to clean, quality of vision, level of laparoscopic procedure complexity, or cost was observed between the groups. CONSLUSIONS: The FloShield Air System® resulted in fewer laparoscopic lens removals than the water + PVI solution solution, but that there was no difference in quality of vision, cleaning time or cost, especially for the more complex surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gynecologic endoscopic surgery; Lens vision quality; Randomized trial

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28643058     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5642-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  19 in total

Review 1.  Warmed and humidified carbon dioxide for abdominal laparoscopic surgery: meta-analysis of the current literature.

Authors:  David Balayssac; Bruno Pereira; Jean-Etienne Bazin; Bertrand Le Roy; Denis Pezet; Johan Gagnière
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Impact of Laparoscopic Lens Contamination in Operating Theaters: A Study on the Frequency and Duration of Lens Contamination and Commonly Utilized Techniques to Maintain Clear Vision.

Authors:  Nathanael Yong; Philippe Grange; David Eldred-Evans
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.719

Review 3.  Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shao-Hui Chen; Zhao-Ai Li; Xiu-Ping Du
Journal:  Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 0.146

4.  Transparent antifouling material for improved operative field visibility in endoscopy.

Authors:  Steffi Sunny; George Cheng; Daniel Daniel; Peter Lo; Sebastian Ochoa; Caitlin Howell; Nicolas Vogel; Adnan Majid; Joanna Aizenberg
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  How to schedule elective surgical cases into specific operating rooms to maximize the efficiency of use of operating room time.

Authors:  Franklin Dexter; Rodney D Traub
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 6.  The role of laparoscopic surgery in gynecologic oncology.

Authors:  M Canis; G Mage; A Wattiez; J L Pouly; E Glowaczover; J Raiga; M Bruhat
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 1.927

Review 7.  Laparoscopic Ovarian Transposition Before Pelvic Cancer Treatment: Ovarian Function and Fertility Preservation.

Authors:  Nash S Moawad; Estefania Santamaria; Alice Rhoton-Vlasak; Judith L Lightsey
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 4.137

8.  Povidone-iodine surgical scrub solution prevents fogging of the scope's lens during laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Bijan Mohammadhosseini
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  Humidification during laparoscopic surgery: overview of the clinical benefits of using humidified gas during laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Maria Mercedes Binda
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2015-04-25       Impact factor: 2.344

Review 10.  Uterine fibroid management: from the present to the future.

Authors:  Jacques Donnez; Marie-Madeleine Dolmans
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 15.610

View more
  3 in total

1.  A Pilot Study for a Better Visibility in the 3D Laparoscopic Right Colectomy Surgery.

Authors:  Lei Gu; Pei-Lin Liu; Hong Zhou; Qing Xu
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Stop the leak!: Mitigating potential exposure of aerosolized COVID-19 during laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  John M Uecker; Farshid Alembeigi; Christopher R Idelson; Austin Fagerberg; Naser Ahmad; Alexander Cohen; Mitchell Gilkey
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Effective cleaning of endoscopic lenses to achieve visual clarity for minimally invasive abdominopelvic surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ahmad Nabeel; Salman K Al-Sabah; Hutan Ashrafian
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 4.584

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.