Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2014
Influence of pneumoperitoneum pressure on surgical field during robotic and laparoscopic surgery: a comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Angioli Roberto, Terranova Corrado, Plotti Francesco, Cafà Ester Valentina, Gennari Paolo, Ricciardi Roberto, Aloisi Alessia, Miranda Andrea, Montera Roberto, De Cicco Nardone Carlo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Studies on the influence of CO₂ pneumoperitoneum on the abdominal cavity during robotic procedures are lacking. This is the first study to evaluate surgical field modifications related to CO₂ pressure, during laparoscopic and robotic surgery.
METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy were enrolled in the study. To evaluate the level of operative field visualization, a dedicated form has been designed based on the evaluation of four different areas: Douglas space, vesico-uterine fold and, bilaterally, the broad ligament. During the initial inspection, an assistant randomly set the CO₂ pressure at 15, 10 and 5 mmHg, and the surgeon, not aware of the CO₂ values, was asked to give an evaluation of the four areas for each set pressure.
RESULTS: In laparoscopic group, CO₂ pressure significantly influenced the surgical field visualization in all four areas analyzed. The surgeon had a good visualization only at 15 mmHg CO₂ pressure; visualization decreased with a statistically significant difference from 15 to 5, 15-10 and 10-5 mmHg. In robotic group, influence of CO₂ pressure on surgical areas visualization was not straightforward; operative field visualization remained stable at any pressure value with no significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Pneumoperitoneum pressure significantly affects the visualization of the abdomino-pelvic cavity in laparoscopic procedures. Otherwise, CO₂ pressure does not affect the visualization of surgical field during robotic surgery. These findings are particularly significant especially at low CO₂ pressure with potential implications on peritoneal environment and the subsequent post-operative patient recovery.
METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy were enrolled in the study. To evaluate the level of operative field visualization, a dedicated form has been designed based on the evaluation of four different areas: Douglas space, vesico-uterine fold and, bilaterally, the broad ligament. During the initial inspection, an assistant randomly set the CO₂ pressure at 15, 10 and 5 mmHg, and the surgeon, not aware of the CO₂ values, was asked to give an evaluation of the four areas for each set pressure.
RESULTS: In laparoscopic group, CO₂ pressure significantly influenced the surgical field visualization in all four areas analyzed. The surgeon had a good visualization only at 15 mmHg CO₂ pressure; visualization decreased with a statistically significant difference from 15 to 5, 15-10 and 10-5 mmHg. In robotic group, influence of CO₂ pressure on surgical areas visualization was not straightforward; operative field visualization remained stable at any pressure value with no significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Pneumoperitoneum pressure significantly affects the visualization of the abdomino-pelvic cavity in laparoscopic procedures. Otherwise, CO₂ pressure does not affect the visualization of surgical field during robotic surgery. These findings are particularly significant especially at low CO₂ pressure with potential implications on peritoneal environment and the subsequent post-operative patient recovery.