In Laparoscopic Surgery, a Comparative Study of the Open vs Closed Approach of Pneumoperitoneum Generation
Authors/Creators
- 1. Medical officer, Department of Surgery, Vardhman Institute of Medical Sciences, Pawapuri, Nalanda, Bihar, India
- 2. Assistant Professor Department of Surgery, Vardhman Institute of Medical Sciences, Pawapuri, Nalanda, Bihar, India
- 3. Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, Vardhman Institute of Medical Sciences, Pawapuri, Nalanda, Bihar, India
Description
Aim: A comparative study of the open versus closed method of pneumoperitoneum creation in laparoscopic surgery. Methods: This comparative study conducted in multiple institutes of Bihar, India, for 12 months. 100 patients of either sex were selected who undergone operative procedure for laparoscopy surgery were included in this study. The patients were diagnosed on the basis of clinical symptoms, physical examination and haematological as well as radiological investigations. All patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery and hemodynamically stable patients. Results: Technical difficulties like multiple attempts, gas leak at port site and port site bleeding are more in open method than in closed method, which is attributed to larger size of incision in open method, Furthermore, a significant higher incidence of such minor complications is found in case of BMI >25 p=-5.44 (p<0.05) at confidence level of 95%). Duration for pneumoperitoneum creation in open method group is shorter as compared to closed method group for pneumoperitoneum creation in laparoscopic surgery; p-value is 0 (p<0.05) at confidence level of 95%). Minor technical difficulties like multiple attempts (p=0.041), gas leak at port site (p=0.047), and minor complications like port site bleeding are more with open method. While one case pre peritoneal insufflation is noted in case of closed method. Herep<0.05 in most of the cases. Hence, it is statistically significant. Conclusion: In our study, we can conclude that both methods i.e. open and closed methods of creating pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery are safe to perform. The open technique has slightly more incidence of minor complications due to large incision size but has advantage of lesser duration needed for procedure.
Abstract (English)
Aim: A comparative study of the open versus closed method of pneumoperitoneum creation in laparoscopic surgery. Methods: This comparative study conducted in multiple institutes of Bihar, India, for 12 months. 100 patients of either sex were selected who undergone operative procedure for laparoscopy surgery were included in this study. The patients were diagnosed on the basis of clinical symptoms, physical examination and haematological as well as radiological investigations. All patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery and hemodynamically stable patients. Results: Technical difficulties like multiple attempts, gas leak at port site and port site bleeding are more in open method than in closed method, which is attributed to larger size of incision in open method, Furthermore, a significant higher incidence of such minor complications is found in case of BMI >25 p=-5.44 (p<0.05) at confidence level of 95%). Duration for pneumoperitoneum creation in open method group is shorter as compared to closed method group for pneumoperitoneum creation in laparoscopic surgery; p-value is 0 (p<0.05) at confidence level of 95%). Minor technical difficulties like multiple attempts (p=0.041), gas leak at port site (p=0.047), and minor complications like port site bleeding are more with open method. While one case pre peritoneal insufflation is noted in case of closed method. Herep<0.05 in most of the cases. Hence, it is statistically significant. Conclusion: In our study, we can conclude that both methods i.e. open and closed methods of creating pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery are safe to perform. The open technique has slightly more incidence of minor complications due to large incision size but has advantage of lesser duration needed for procedure.
Files
IJPCR,Vol13,Issue6,Article82.pdf
Files
(105.3 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:2da6f243be84a2aedb15d83bebe08c41
|
105.3 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2021-12-04
Software
- Repository URL
- http://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/13/IJPCR,Vol13,Issue6,Article82.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. NHS Choices. NHS. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/laparos copy/#. t Accessed on 15 July 2019. 2. Agha R, Muir G. Does laparoscopic surgery spell the end of the open surgeon? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. J R Soc Med. 200;96(11):544– 6. 3. Chotai NR, Choksi BB, Damor S, Bhedi A. Intraperitoneal access by closed method (veress needle) versus open (Hasson's) method in laparoscopic surgery to create pneumoperitoneum. Int Surg J. 2017;4(8):2786-90. 4. Perugini RA. Complications of laparoscopic surgery [Internet]. Surgical Treatment: Evidence-Based and Problem-Oriented. Holzheimer RG, Mannick JA, editors. Munich: Zuckschwerdt; 2001. 5. Kwak HD, Ju JK, Kang DW, Baek S-J, Kwak JM, Kim J, et al. Outcomes according to body mass index following laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal cancer [Internet]. J Min Access Surg. 2018; 14:134-9. 6. Lécuru F, Leonard F, Philippe Jais J, Rizk E, Robin F, Taurelle R. Laparoscopy in patients with prior surgery: results of the blind approach Internet. JSLS. 2001;5(1):13–6. 7. Bathla V, Thekdi PI, Koradia P, Jhala D, Gadhvi U. Comparative study of modified open technique and closed technique for primary trocar insertion in laparoscopic surgery. Int J Res Med Sci. 2016;4(1):160–4. 8. Hamayun M, Saba N, Bilal M, Mehsud N. Comparison of open versus closed pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. Gomal J Med Sci. 2015;13(2):115–7. 9. Taye MK, Fazal SA, Pegu D, Saikia D. Open Versus Closed Laparoscopy: Yet an Unresolved Controversy. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(2):4-7. 10. Akbar M, Khan IA, Naveed D, Khattak I, Zafar A, Wazir MS, et al. Comparison of closed and open methods of pneumoperitonium in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2008;20(2):85- 9. 11. Schafer M, Lauper M, Krahenbuhl L. Trocar and Veress needle injuries during laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2001; 15:275-80. 12. Bonjer HJ, Hazebroek EJ, Kazemier G, Giuffrida MC, Meijer WS, Lange JF. Open versus closed establishment of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg. 1997; 84:599-602. 13. Chapron C, Cravello L, Chopin N, Kreiker G, Blanc B, Dubuisson JB. Complications during set-up procedures for laparoscopy in gynaecology: open laparoscopy does not reduce the risk of major complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82: 1125-9. 14. Chandler JG, Corson SL, Way LW. Three spectra of laparoscopic entry access injuries. J Am Coll Surg. 2001; 192:478-90.15. Neudecker J, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E, Bergamaschi R, Bonjer HJ, Cuschieri A. et al. The European association for endoscopic surgery clinical practice guideline on the pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2002; 16:1121- 43. 16. Peitgen K, Nimtz K, Hellinger A, Walz MK. Open approach or Veress needle in laparoscopic interventions? Results of a prospective randomized controlled study. Chirurg. 1997; 68:910-3. 17. Sigman HH, Fried GM, Garzon J, Hinchey EJ, Wexler MJ, Meakins JL, et al. Risks of blind versus open approach to celiotomy for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1993; 3:296-9. 18. Zakherah M. Direct trocar versus veress needle entry for laparoscopy: a randomized clinical trial. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2010; 69:260-3. 19. Moberg A.C, Petersson U. Direct trocar versus veress needle entry for laparoscopy: a randomized clinical trial. Scand J Surg. 2012; 96:297-300. 20. Shailesh K, Shubhendu B. Veress needle: a safe technique in modern laparoscopic era. World J Laparoscop Surg. 2013;6(1):1-5. 21. Ilias J, Jatin B, Bhavesh V. Open vs. closed method of establishing pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. Int J Res Med Sci. 2016;5(1):13-7