Munawar Jamil1, Khurram Niaz1, Fatima Tahir1. 1. Department of Surgery, Quaid-e-Azam Medical College/ Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety profile of closed and open method of pneumoperitonium by comparing access and closure time during laparoscopic surgery and complications. METHODS: This quassi-experimental study was conducted at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur, Pakistan, from September 15, 2013, to September 15, 2016, and comprised patients who were block-randomised into two equal groups. The first half constituted Group A where pneumoperitonium was created by closed method, while the latter half was designated as Group B where the open method was employed. The two groups were compared for access, closure time and complications. SPSS 23 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: There were 850 patients, with 425(50%) in each of the two groups. The overall mean age was 38.78±5.41 years, and 667(78%) were females. The mean access time in Group A was 6.58±1.78min and in Group B it was 5.49±1.82 min. The mean closure time was 7.60±2.12min in Group A and 6.91±1.40min in Group B (p<0.00). Access problem in Group A was significantly high (p=0.001). Abdominal wall complications were 13(3.05%) in Group A and 24(5.64%) in Group B (p=0.064). Visceral injury happened in 5(1.17%) patients in Group A and 1(0.23%) in Group B (p=0.101). CONCLUSIONS: Open method of pneumoperitoneum was found to be safe and less time-consuming compared to the closed method.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety profile of closed and open method of pneumoperitonium by comparing access and closure time during laparoscopic surgery and complications. METHODS: This quassi-experimental study was conducted at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur, Pakistan, from September 15, 2013, to September 15, 2016, and comprised patients who were block-randomised into two equal groups. The first half constituted Group A where pneumoperitonium was created by closed method, while the latter half was designated as Group B where the open method was employed. The two groups were compared for access, closure time and complications. SPSS 23 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: There were 850 patients, with 425(50%) in each of the two groups. The overall mean age was 38.78±5.41 years, and 667(78%) were females. The mean access time in Group A was 6.58±1.78min and in Group B it was 5.49±1.82 min. The mean closure time was 7.60±2.12min in Group A and 6.91±1.40min in Group B (p<0.00). Access problem in Group A was significantly high (p=0.001). Abdominal wall complications were 13(3.05%) in Group A and 24(5.64%) in Group B (p=0.064). Visceral injury happened in 5(1.17%) patients in Group A and 1(0.23%) in Group B (p=0.101). CONCLUSIONS: Open method of pneumoperitoneum was found to be safe and less time-consuming compared to the closed method.