Cargando…
What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has several advantages when compared to open surgery, including faster postoperative recovery and lower pain scores. However, for laparoscopy, a pneumoperitoneum is required to create workspace between the abdominal wall and intraabdominal organs. Increased intraabdo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4848341/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26275545 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4454-9 |
_version_ | 1782429322051584000 |
---|---|
author | Özdemir-van Brunschot, Denise M. D. van Laarhoven, Kees C. J. H. M. Scheffer, Gert-Jan Pouwels, Sjaak Wever, Kim E. Warlé, Michiel C. |
author_facet | Özdemir-van Brunschot, Denise M. D. van Laarhoven, Kees C. J. H. M. Scheffer, Gert-Jan Pouwels, Sjaak Wever, Kim E. Warlé, Michiel C. |
author_sort | Özdemir-van Brunschot, Denise M. D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has several advantages when compared to open surgery, including faster postoperative recovery and lower pain scores. However, for laparoscopy, a pneumoperitoneum is required to create workspace between the abdominal wall and intraabdominal organs. Increased intraabdominal pressure may also have negative implications on cardiovascular, pulmonary, and intraabdominal organ functionings. To overcome these negative consequences, several trials have been performed comparing low- versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum. METHODS: A systematic review of all randomized controlled clinical trials and observational studies comparing low- versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Quality assessment showed that the overall quality of evidence was moderate to low. Postoperative pain scores were reduced by the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. With appropriate perioperative measures, the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum does not seem to have clinical advantages as compared to standard pressure on cardiac and pulmonary function. Although there are indications that low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is associated with less liver and kidney injury when compared to standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum, this does not seem to have clinical implications for healthy individuals. The influence of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on adhesion formation, anastomosis healing, tumor metastasis, intraocular and intracerebral pressure, and thromboembolic complications remains uncertain, as no human clinical trials have been performed. The influence of pressure on surgical conditions and safety has not been established to date. In conclusion, the most important benefit of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is lower postoperative pain scores, supported by a moderate quality of evidence. However, the quality of surgical conditions and safety of the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum need to be established, as are the values and preferences of physicians and patients regarding the potential benefits and risks. Therefore, the recommendation to use low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopy is weak, and more studies are required. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4848341 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48483412016-05-12 What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review Özdemir-van Brunschot, Denise M. D. van Laarhoven, Kees C. J. H. M. Scheffer, Gert-Jan Pouwels, Sjaak Wever, Kim E. Warlé, Michiel C. Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has several advantages when compared to open surgery, including faster postoperative recovery and lower pain scores. However, for laparoscopy, a pneumoperitoneum is required to create workspace between the abdominal wall and intraabdominal organs. Increased intraabdominal pressure may also have negative implications on cardiovascular, pulmonary, and intraabdominal organ functionings. To overcome these negative consequences, several trials have been performed comparing low- versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum. METHODS: A systematic review of all randomized controlled clinical trials and observational studies comparing low- versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Quality assessment showed that the overall quality of evidence was moderate to low. Postoperative pain scores were reduced by the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. With appropriate perioperative measures, the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum does not seem to have clinical advantages as compared to standard pressure on cardiac and pulmonary function. Although there are indications that low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is associated with less liver and kidney injury when compared to standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum, this does not seem to have clinical implications for healthy individuals. The influence of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on adhesion formation, anastomosis healing, tumor metastasis, intraocular and intracerebral pressure, and thromboembolic complications remains uncertain, as no human clinical trials have been performed. The influence of pressure on surgical conditions and safety has not been established to date. In conclusion, the most important benefit of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is lower postoperative pain scores, supported by a moderate quality of evidence. However, the quality of surgical conditions and safety of the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum need to be established, as are the values and preferences of physicians and patients regarding the potential benefits and risks. Therefore, the recommendation to use low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopy is weak, and more studies are required. Springer US 2015-08-15 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4848341/ /pubmed/26275545 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4454-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Article Özdemir-van Brunschot, Denise M. D. van Laarhoven, Kees C. J. H. M. Scheffer, Gert-Jan Pouwels, Sjaak Wever, Kim E. Warlé, Michiel C. What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review |
title | What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review |
title_full | What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review |
title_fullStr | What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review |
title_short | What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review |
title_sort | what is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? a systematic review |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4848341/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26275545 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4454-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ozdemirvanbrunschotdenisemd whatistheevidencefortheuseoflowpressurepneumoperitoneumasystematicreview AT vanlaarhovenkeescjhm whatistheevidencefortheuseoflowpressurepneumoperitoneumasystematicreview AT scheffergertjan whatistheevidencefortheuseoflowpressurepneumoperitoneumasystematicreview AT pouwelssjaak whatistheevidencefortheuseoflowpressurepneumoperitoneumasystematicreview AT weverkime whatistheevidencefortheuseoflowpressurepneumoperitoneumasystematicreview AT warlemichielc whatistheevidencefortheuseoflowpressurepneumoperitoneumasystematicreview |