Oscar Diaz-Cambronero1, Blas Flor Lorente2, Guido Mazzinari3, Maria Vila Montañes4, Nuria García Gregorio4, Daniel Robles Hernandez5, Luis Enrique Olmedilla Arnal6, Maria Pilar Argente Navarro4, Marcus J Schultz7,8, Carlos L Errando9. 1. Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine Research Group, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico la Fe. Valencia España, Avinguda de Fernando Abril Martorell 106, 46026, Valencia, Spain. perioperativemedicine@iislafe.es. 2. Colorectal Surgery, Hospital Universitario y Politecnico la Fe, Valencia, Spain. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital de Manises, Valencia, Spain. 4. Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine Research Group, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico la Fe. Valencia España, Avinguda de Fernando Abril Martorell 106, 46026, Valencia, Spain. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital General Universitario de Castellon, Castellón de la Plana, Spain. 6. Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain. 7. Department of Intensive Care & Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology (L·E·I·C·A), Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 9. Department of Anesthesiology, Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While guidelines for laparoscopic abdominal surgery advise using the lowest possible intra-abdominal pressure, commonly a standard pressure is used. We evaluated the feasibility of a predefined multifaceted individualized pneumoperitoneum strategy aiming at the lowest possible intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: Multicenter prospective study in patients scheduled for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The strategy consisted of ventilation with low tidal volume, a modified lithotomy position, deep neuromuscular blockade, pre-stretching of the abdominal wall, and individualized intra-abdominal pressure titration; the effect was blindly evaluated by the surgeon. The primary endpoint was the proportion of surgical procedures completed at each individualized intra-abdominal pressure level. Secondary endpoints were the respiratory system driving pressure, and the estimated volume of insufflated CO2 gas needed to perform the surgical procedure. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were enrolled in the study. Fourteen cases were converted to open surgery for reasons not related to the strategy. The intervention was feasible in all patients and well-accepted by all surgeons. In 61 out of 78 patients (78%), surgery was performed and completed at the lowest possible IAP, 8 mmHg. In 17 patients, IAP was raised up to 12 mmHg. The relationship between IAP and driving pressure was almost linear. The mean estimated intra-abdominal CO2 volume at which surgery was performed was 3.2 L. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted individualized pneumoperitoneum strategy during laparoscopic colorectal surgery was feasible and resulted in an adequate working space in most patients at lower intra-abdominal pressure and lower respiratory driving pressure. ClinicalTrials.gov (Trial Identifier: NCT03000465).
BACKGROUND: While guidelines for laparoscopic abdominal surgery advise using the lowest possible intra-abdominal pressure, commonly a standard pressure is used. We evaluated the feasibility of a predefined multifaceted individualized pneumoperitoneum strategy aiming at the lowest possible intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: Multicenter prospective study in patients scheduled for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The strategy consisted of ventilation with low tidal volume, a modified lithotomy position, deep neuromuscular blockade, pre-stretching of the abdominal wall, and individualized intra-abdominal pressure titration; the effect was blindly evaluated by the surgeon. The primary endpoint was the proportion of surgical procedures completed at each individualized intra-abdominal pressure level. Secondary endpoints were the respiratory system driving pressure, and the estimated volume of insufflated CO2 gas needed to perform the surgical procedure. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were enrolled in the study. Fourteen cases were converted to open surgery for reasons not related to the strategy. The intervention was feasible in all patients and well-accepted by all surgeons. In 61 out of 78 patients (78%), surgery was performed and completed at the lowest possible IAP, 8 mmHg. In 17 patients, IAP was raised up to 12 mmHg. The relationship between IAP and driving pressure was almost linear. The mean estimated intra-abdominal CO2 volume at which surgery was performed was 3.2 L. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted individualized pneumoperitoneum strategy during laparoscopic colorectal surgery was feasible and resulted in an adequate working space in most patients at lower intra-abdominal pressure and lower respiratory driving pressure. ClinicalTrials.gov (Trial Identifier: NCT03000465).
Authors: Lothar A Schwarte; Thomas W L Scheeren; Christel Lorenz; Filip De Bruyne; Artur Fournell Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Gustavo A Cortes-Puentes; Kenneth E Gard; Alexander B Adams; Katherine A Faltesek; Christopher P Anderson; David J Dries; John J Marini Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: R M Van Wijk; R W Watts; T Ledowski; M Trochsler; J L Moran; G W N Arenas Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: Ary Serpa Neto; Sabrine N T Hemmes; Carmen S V Barbas; Martin Beiderlinden; Ana Fernandez-Bustamante; Emmanuel Futier; Markus W Hollmann; Samir Jaber; Alf Kozian; Marc Licker; Wen-Qian Lin; Pierre Moine; Federica Scavonetto; Thomas Schilling; Gabriele Selmo; Paolo Severgnini; Juraj Sprung; Tanja Treschan; Carmen Unzueta; Toby N Weingarten; Esther K Wolthuis; Hermann Wrigge; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Marco E Allaix; Edgar J B Furnée; Massimiliano Mistrangelo; Alberto Arezzo; Mario Morino Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Kim I Albers; Fatih Polat; Ivo F Panhuizen; Marc M J Snoeck; Gert-Jan Scheffer; Hans D de Boer; Michiel C Warlé Journal: Trials Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Frank Sterke; Willem van Weteringen; Lorenzo Ventura; Ilaria Milesi; René M H Wijnen; John Vlot; Raffaele L Dellacà Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 3.453