Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2021
Quality of recovery in patients under low- or standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum. A randomised controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Moro Eduardo T, Pinto Persio C C, Neto Antônio J M M, Hilkner Augusto L, Salvador Luis F P, da Silva Beatriz R D, Souto Isabella G, Boralli Renata, Bloomstone Joshua
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum seems to be capable of reducing complications such as post-operative pain. However, the quality of evidence supporting this conclusion is low. Both the lack of investigator blinding to both intra-abdominal pressure and to method of neuromuscular blockade represent key sources of bias. Hence, this prospective, randomised, and double-blind study aimed to compare the quality of recovery (Questionnaire QoR-40) of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under low-pressure and standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum. We tested the hypothesis that low pneumoperitoneum pressure enhances the quality of recovery following LC.
METHODS: Eighty patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly divided into two groups, a low-pressure (10 mm Hg) pneumoperitoneum group and a standard-pressure (14 mm Hg) pneumoperitoneum group. For all participants, the value of the insufflation pressure was kept hidden and only the nurse responsible for the operating room was aware of it. Deep neuromuscular blockade was induced for all cases [train-of-four (TOF) = 0; post-tetanic count (PTC) > 0]. The quality of recovery was assessed on the morning of first post-operative day.
RESULTS: No difference was found in either total score or in its different dimensions according to the QoR-40 questionnaire. The patients in the low-pressure pneumoperitoneum group experienced more pain during forced coughing measured at 4 hours (median difference [95% CI], 1 [0-2]; P = .030), 8 hours (1 [0-2]; P = .030) and 12 hours (0 [0-1] P = .025) after discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit, when compared with those in the standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum group.
CONCLUSION: We thus conclude that the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not improve the quality of recovery.
METHODS: Eighty patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly divided into two groups, a low-pressure (10 mm Hg) pneumoperitoneum group and a standard-pressure (14 mm Hg) pneumoperitoneum group. For all participants, the value of the insufflation pressure was kept hidden and only the nurse responsible for the operating room was aware of it. Deep neuromuscular blockade was induced for all cases [train-of-four (TOF) = 0; post-tetanic count (PTC) > 0]. The quality of recovery was assessed on the morning of first post-operative day.
RESULTS: No difference was found in either total score or in its different dimensions according to the QoR-40 questionnaire. The patients in the low-pressure pneumoperitoneum group experienced more pain during forced coughing measured at 4 hours (median difference [95% CI], 1 [0-2]; P = .030), 8 hours (1 [0-2]; P = .030) and 12 hours (0 [0-1] P = .025) after discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit, when compared with those in the standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum group.
CONCLUSION: We thus conclude that the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not improve the quality of recovery.