We have located links that may give you full text access.
Lower intra-abdominal pressure has no cardiopulmonary benefits during laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.
Surgical Endoscopy 2018 November
BACKGROUND: Higher intra-abdominal pressure may impair cardiopulmonary functions during laparoscopic surgery. While 12-15 mmHg is generally recommended as a standard pressure, the benefits of lower intra-abdominal pressure are unclear. We thus studied whether the low intra-abdominal pressure compared with the standard pressure improves cardiopulmonary dynamics during laparoscopic surgery.
METHODS: Patients were randomized according to the intra-abdominal pressure and neuromuscular blocking levels during laparoscopic colorectal surgery: low pressure (8 mmHg) with deep-block (post-tetanic count 1-2), standard pressure (12 mmHg) with deep-block, and standard pressure with moderate-block (train-of-four count 1-2) groups. During the laparoscopic procedure, we recorded cardiopulmonary variables including cardiac index, pulmonary compliance, and surgical conditions. We also assessed postoperative pain intensity and recovery time of bowel movement. The primary outcome was the cardiac index 30 min after onset of laparoscopy.
RESULTS: Patients were included in the low pressure with deep-block (n = 44), standard pressure with deep-block (n = 44), and standard pressure with moderate-block (n = 43) groups. The mean (SD) of cardiac index 30 min after laparoscopy was 2.7 (0.7), 2.7 (0.9), and 2.6 (1.0) L min-1 m-2 in each group (P = 0.715). The pulmonary compliance was higher but the surgical condition was poorer in the low intra-abdominal pressure than the standard pressure (both P < 0.001). Other variables were comparable between groups.
CONCLUSION: We observed few cardiopulmonary benefits but poor surgical conditions in the low intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopy. Considering cardiopulmonary dynamics and surgical conditions, the standard intra-abdominal pressure may be preferable to the low pressure for laparoscopic surgery.
METHODS: Patients were randomized according to the intra-abdominal pressure and neuromuscular blocking levels during laparoscopic colorectal surgery: low pressure (8 mmHg) with deep-block (post-tetanic count 1-2), standard pressure (12 mmHg) with deep-block, and standard pressure with moderate-block (train-of-four count 1-2) groups. During the laparoscopic procedure, we recorded cardiopulmonary variables including cardiac index, pulmonary compliance, and surgical conditions. We also assessed postoperative pain intensity and recovery time of bowel movement. The primary outcome was the cardiac index 30 min after onset of laparoscopy.
RESULTS: Patients were included in the low pressure with deep-block (n = 44), standard pressure with deep-block (n = 44), and standard pressure with moderate-block (n = 43) groups. The mean (SD) of cardiac index 30 min after laparoscopy was 2.7 (0.7), 2.7 (0.9), and 2.6 (1.0) L min-1 m-2 in each group (P = 0.715). The pulmonary compliance was higher but the surgical condition was poorer in the low intra-abdominal pressure than the standard pressure (both P < 0.001). Other variables were comparable between groups.
CONCLUSION: We observed few cardiopulmonary benefits but poor surgical conditions in the low intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopy. Considering cardiopulmonary dynamics and surgical conditions, the standard intra-abdominal pressure may be preferable to the low pressure for laparoscopic surgery.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app