Cargando…
A Dual-Valve System to Minimize Loss of Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Loss of visualization of the surgical field due to pneumoperitoneum deflation when CO(2) insufflator cylinders become empty can occur at key moments during laparoscopic surgery. The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence of intraoperative cylinder exhaustion in...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4432722/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26005321 http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2015.00020 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Loss of visualization of the surgical field due to pneumoperitoneum deflation when CO(2) insufflator cylinders become empty can occur at key moments during laparoscopic surgery. The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence of intraoperative cylinder exhaustion in the United Kingdom, determine its impact on patient safety, and design and test a novel device to minimize the phenomenon. METHODS: We performed a national cross-sectional survey of U.K. surgeons, inviting all members of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ASGBI) and the Association of Upper GI Surgeons (AUGIS) to participate. We designed and tested a novel dual-valve system to allow rapid intraoperative exchange of CO(2) cylinders. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of the U.K. surgeons surveyed reported loss of surgical visualization at critical times during laparoscopic surgery, caused by the decrease in pneumoperitoneum during CO(2) cylinder exchange. Eighty-four percent said that the process contributed to the surgeon's stress, and 63% said that a device that maintains uninterrupted pneumoperitoneum would reduce the risk of intraoperative complications. In our locale, a timed cylinder exchange was, on average, 30 times quicker with the novel dual valve than by conventional cylinder exchange (mean conventional exchange time, 61.3 ± 7.3 s vs. novel device, 2.0 ± 0.2 s; P ≤ .0001) and could be performed just as rapidly by staff unfamiliar with the device (2.2 ± 0.3 s vs. 1.9 ± 0.4 s P = .1945). We suggest that this simple, low-cost system could be developed for use in a clinical setting to enhance patient safety. |
---|