P L Johnson1, K S Sibert. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare gasless laparoscopy with conventional laparoscopy using CO2 pneumoperitoneum. STUDY DESIGN:Women undergoingbilateral laparoscopic tubal coagulation (LTC) were randomly assigned to one of two laparoscopy procedures: (1) a gasless laparoscopy system consisting of an intraabdominal fan retractor and electrically powered mechanical arm, and (2) standard CO2 pneumoperitoneum laparoscopy. The two laparoscopic procedures were compared on the basis of intraoperative visualization, operation duration, procedural difficulty, ventilatory parameters, hemodynamic stability, and postoperative pain and nausea. RESULTS: Significant disadvantages for the surgeon (increased technical difficulty, poorer visualization, longer operative times) and patient (greater postoperative pain and nausea) were seen with the gasless system. Because of these findings, the study was prematurely terminated after only 18 patients had participated. Intraoperative ventilatory and hemodynamic parameters were more stable in the gasless laparoscopy groups; however, the differences were not clinically significant in this population of healthy patients. CONCLUSION: The markedly increased technical difficulty and absence of clear clinical benefits for the healthy patient led to the conclusion that laparoscopy with CO2 pneumoperitoneum is preferable for routine LTC and most laparoscopic procedures in the pelvis. Gasless laparoscopy may be of benefit for the fragile patient with a compromised cardiovascular system who may suffer complications from hypercarbenemia.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare gasless laparoscopy with conventional laparoscopy using CO2 pneumoperitoneum. STUDY DESIGN:Women undergoing bilateral laparoscopic tubal coagulation (LTC) were randomly assigned to one of two laparoscopy procedures: (1) a gasless laparoscopy system consisting of an intraabdominal fan retractor and electrically powered mechanical arm, and (2) standard CO2 pneumoperitoneum laparoscopy. The two laparoscopic procedures were compared on the basis of intraoperative visualization, operation duration, procedural difficulty, ventilatory parameters, hemodynamic stability, and postoperative pain and nausea. RESULTS: Significant disadvantages for the surgeon (increased technical difficulty, poorer visualization, longer operative times) and patient (greater postoperative pain and nausea) were seen with the gasless system. Because of these findings, the study was prematurely terminated after only 18 patients had participated. Intraoperative ventilatory and hemodynamic parameters were more stable in the gasless laparoscopy groups; however, the differences were not clinically significant in this population of healthy patients. CONCLUSION: The markedly increased technical difficulty and absence of clear clinical benefits for the healthy patient led to the conclusion that laparoscopy with CO2 pneumoperitoneum is preferable for routine LTC and most laparoscopic procedures in the pelvis. Gasless laparoscopy may be of benefit for the fragilepatient with a compromised cardiovascular system who may suffer complications from hypercarbenemia.