Cargando…

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Lens Defogging Techniques through Simulation Model

CONTEXT: Current literature demonstrates a lack of comparative studies regarding effective techniques for reducing laparoscopic lens fogging. AIM: Our primary objective is to determine the efficacy of various laparoscopic defogging techniques (LDT) through a randomized controlled trial that employs...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Palvia, Vijay, Gonzalez, Aaron J. Herrera, Vigh, Richard S., Anasti, James N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30306034
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_39_18
_version_ 1783361029926813696
author Palvia, Vijay
Gonzalez, Aaron J. Herrera
Vigh, Richard S.
Anasti, James N.
author_facet Palvia, Vijay
Gonzalez, Aaron J. Herrera
Vigh, Richard S.
Anasti, James N.
author_sort Palvia, Vijay
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT: Current literature demonstrates a lack of comparative studies regarding effective techniques for reducing laparoscopic lens fogging. AIM: Our primary objective is to determine the efficacy of various laparoscopic defogging techniques (LDT) through a randomized controlled trial that employs a novel simulation model of the abdominopelvic cavity. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This study was conducted at academic community hospital. This study design was a randomized controlled trial through simulation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A chamber was constructed that simulated the abdominopelvic cavity. We used 5 and 10 mm 0° laparoscopes. A 10 cm visual analog scale was developed to assign visual clarity (VC) scores. The 10 cm mark indicated perfect VC. We employed the following LDTs: (1) glove warming (GLOVE), (2) surfactant solution (Fog Reduction and Elimination Device [FRED]), (3) chlorhexidine solution (SOAP), (4) warm saline (SALINE), and (5) control. Three observers were blinded to the LDT used. Primary outcomes included VC scores at designated time intervals (5, 30, and 60 s) for each LDT. A minimum of 10 observations per time interval were required to achieve adequate power based on a 2.5 cm difference in VC scores. RESULTS: For the 10 mm laparoscope, FRED, SOAP, and SALINE had a VC score at 60 s (VC60) higher than control (4.8 ± 2.2, 7.8 ± 0.8, 7.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.4 ± 0.72, P < 0.05). Both SOAP and SALINE VC60 scores were higher than FRED (7.8 ± 0.8, 7.9 ± 0.7 vs. 4.8 ± 2.2, P < 0.05). No differences were noted in VC60 scores between control and GLOVE (2.4 ± 0.72 vs. 3.1 ± 2.2, P > 0.05) and between SOAP and SALINE (7.8 ± 0.8 vs. 7.9 ± 0.7, P > 0.05). Similar results were noted with the 5 mm laparoscope. CONCLUSIONS: Common LDTs such as SALINE and SOAP were more effective than FRED, while GLOVE was no different than control. These results demonstrate that the use of effective LDTs can potentially translate into improved patient care and operative outcomes during surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6172873
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61728732018-10-10 A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Lens Defogging Techniques through Simulation Model Palvia, Vijay Gonzalez, Aaron J. Herrera Vigh, Richard S. Anasti, James N. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther Original Article CONTEXT: Current literature demonstrates a lack of comparative studies regarding effective techniques for reducing laparoscopic lens fogging. AIM: Our primary objective is to determine the efficacy of various laparoscopic defogging techniques (LDT) through a randomized controlled trial that employs a novel simulation model of the abdominopelvic cavity. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This study was conducted at academic community hospital. This study design was a randomized controlled trial through simulation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A chamber was constructed that simulated the abdominopelvic cavity. We used 5 and 10 mm 0° laparoscopes. A 10 cm visual analog scale was developed to assign visual clarity (VC) scores. The 10 cm mark indicated perfect VC. We employed the following LDTs: (1) glove warming (GLOVE), (2) surfactant solution (Fog Reduction and Elimination Device [FRED]), (3) chlorhexidine solution (SOAP), (4) warm saline (SALINE), and (5) control. Three observers were blinded to the LDT used. Primary outcomes included VC scores at designated time intervals (5, 30, and 60 s) for each LDT. A minimum of 10 observations per time interval were required to achieve adequate power based on a 2.5 cm difference in VC scores. RESULTS: For the 10 mm laparoscope, FRED, SOAP, and SALINE had a VC score at 60 s (VC60) higher than control (4.8 ± 2.2, 7.8 ± 0.8, 7.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.4 ± 0.72, P < 0.05). Both SOAP and SALINE VC60 scores were higher than FRED (7.8 ± 0.8, 7.9 ± 0.7 vs. 4.8 ± 2.2, P < 0.05). No differences were noted in VC60 scores between control and GLOVE (2.4 ± 0.72 vs. 3.1 ± 2.2, P > 0.05) and between SOAP and SALINE (7.8 ± 0.8 vs. 7.9 ± 0.7, P > 0.05). Similar results were noted with the 5 mm laparoscope. CONCLUSIONS: Common LDTs such as SALINE and SOAP were more effective than FRED, while GLOVE was no different than control. These results demonstrate that the use of effective LDTs can potentially translate into improved patient care and operative outcomes during surgery. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 2018-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6172873/ /pubmed/30306034 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_39_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Palvia, Vijay
Gonzalez, Aaron J. Herrera
Vigh, Richard S.
Anasti, James N.
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Lens Defogging Techniques through Simulation Model
title A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Lens Defogging Techniques through Simulation Model
title_full A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Lens Defogging Techniques through Simulation Model
title_fullStr A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Lens Defogging Techniques through Simulation Model
title_full_unstemmed A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Lens Defogging Techniques through Simulation Model
title_short A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Lens Defogging Techniques through Simulation Model
title_sort randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic lens defogging techniques through simulation model
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30306034
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_39_18
work_keys_str_mv AT palviavijay arandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparinglaparoscopiclensdefoggingtechniquesthroughsimulationmodel
AT gonzalezaaronjherrera arandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparinglaparoscopiclensdefoggingtechniquesthroughsimulationmodel
AT vighrichards arandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparinglaparoscopiclensdefoggingtechniquesthroughsimulationmodel
AT anastijamesn arandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparinglaparoscopiclensdefoggingtechniquesthroughsimulationmodel
AT palviavijay randomizedcontrolledtrialcomparinglaparoscopiclensdefoggingtechniquesthroughsimulationmodel
AT gonzalezaaronjherrera randomizedcontrolledtrialcomparinglaparoscopiclensdefoggingtechniquesthroughsimulationmodel
AT vighrichards randomizedcontrolledtrialcomparinglaparoscopiclensdefoggingtechniquesthroughsimulationmodel
AT anastijamesn randomizedcontrolledtrialcomparinglaparoscopiclensdefoggingtechniquesthroughsimulationmodel