Cargando…

Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO(2) pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal®

BACKGROUND: AirSeal® is a valve-free insufflation system that enables a stable pneumoperitoneum with continuous smoke evacuation and CO(2) recirculation during laparoscopic surgery. Comparative evidence on the use of AirSeal® and standard CO(2) insufflator in laparoscopic general surgery procedures...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luketina, Rosalia, Luketina, Theodore L. H., Antoniou, Stavros A., Köhler, Gernot, Könneker, Sören, Manzenreiter, Lisa, Wundsam, Helwig, Koch, Oliver Owen, Knauer, Michael, Emmanuel, Klaus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7412773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32767145
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07846-4
_version_ 1783568676672241664
author Luketina, Rosalia
Luketina, Theodore L. H.
Antoniou, Stavros A.
Köhler, Gernot
Könneker, Sören
Manzenreiter, Lisa
Wundsam, Helwig
Koch, Oliver Owen
Knauer, Michael
Emmanuel, Klaus
author_facet Luketina, Rosalia
Luketina, Theodore L. H.
Antoniou, Stavros A.
Köhler, Gernot
Könneker, Sören
Manzenreiter, Lisa
Wundsam, Helwig
Koch, Oliver Owen
Knauer, Michael
Emmanuel, Klaus
author_sort Luketina, Rosalia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: AirSeal® is a valve-free insufflation system that enables a stable pneumoperitoneum with continuous smoke evacuation and CO(2) recirculation during laparoscopic surgery. Comparative evidence on the use of AirSeal® and standard CO(2) insufflator in laparoscopic general surgery procedures is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes between AirSeal® and standard CO(2) insufflators in patients undergoing the most frequently performed laparoscopic procedures. METHODS: One hundred and ninety-eight patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, colorectal surgery and hernia repair were randomized to either AirSeal® (group A) or standard pressure CO(2) insufflator (group S). The primary endpoints were operative time and level of postoperative shoulder tip pain (Visual Analog Scale). Secondary outcomes included Clavien–Dindo grade complications, surgical side effect and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to either group A (n = 101) or group S (n = 97) and were analyzed by intention-to-treat. There was no significant difference in mean operative time between the groups (median [IQR]; 71 min [56–94] in group A vs. 69 min [52–93] in group S; p = 0.434). Shoulder tip pain levels were significantly lower in group S (VAS 0 [0–3] in group S vs. 2 [0–4] in group A; p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in complications, surgical side effects (subcutaneous emphysema was not observed in any group) and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial showed that using the AirSeal® system did not reduce operative time and was associated with a higher postoperative shoulder tip pain compared to standard CO(2) insufflator for short elective surgeries. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01740011).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7412773
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74127732020-08-10 Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO(2) pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal® Luketina, Rosalia Luketina, Theodore L. H. Antoniou, Stavros A. Köhler, Gernot Könneker, Sören Manzenreiter, Lisa Wundsam, Helwig Koch, Oliver Owen Knauer, Michael Emmanuel, Klaus Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUND: AirSeal® is a valve-free insufflation system that enables a stable pneumoperitoneum with continuous smoke evacuation and CO(2) recirculation during laparoscopic surgery. Comparative evidence on the use of AirSeal® and standard CO(2) insufflator in laparoscopic general surgery procedures is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes between AirSeal® and standard CO(2) insufflators in patients undergoing the most frequently performed laparoscopic procedures. METHODS: One hundred and ninety-eight patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, colorectal surgery and hernia repair were randomized to either AirSeal® (group A) or standard pressure CO(2) insufflator (group S). The primary endpoints were operative time and level of postoperative shoulder tip pain (Visual Analog Scale). Secondary outcomes included Clavien–Dindo grade complications, surgical side effect and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to either group A (n = 101) or group S (n = 97) and were analyzed by intention-to-treat. There was no significant difference in mean operative time between the groups (median [IQR]; 71 min [56–94] in group A vs. 69 min [52–93] in group S; p = 0.434). Shoulder tip pain levels were significantly lower in group S (VAS 0 [0–3] in group S vs. 2 [0–4] in group A; p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in complications, surgical side effects (subcutaneous emphysema was not observed in any group) and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial showed that using the AirSeal® system did not reduce operative time and was associated with a higher postoperative shoulder tip pain compared to standard CO(2) insufflator for short elective surgeries. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01740011). Springer US 2020-08-07 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7412773/ /pubmed/32767145 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07846-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Luketina, Rosalia
Luketina, Theodore L. H.
Antoniou, Stavros A.
Köhler, Gernot
Könneker, Sören
Manzenreiter, Lisa
Wundsam, Helwig
Koch, Oliver Owen
Knauer, Michael
Emmanuel, Klaus
Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO(2) pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal®
title Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO(2) pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal®
title_full Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO(2) pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal®
title_fullStr Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO(2) pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal®
title_full_unstemmed Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO(2) pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal®
title_short Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO(2) pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal®
title_sort prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard co(2) pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus airseal®
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7412773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32767145
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07846-4
work_keys_str_mv AT luketinarosalia prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialoncomparisonofstandardco2pressurepneumoperitoneuminsufflatorversusairseal
AT luketinatheodorelh prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialoncomparisonofstandardco2pressurepneumoperitoneuminsufflatorversusairseal
AT antonioustavrosa prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialoncomparisonofstandardco2pressurepneumoperitoneuminsufflatorversusairseal
AT kohlergernot prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialoncomparisonofstandardco2pressurepneumoperitoneuminsufflatorversusairseal
AT konnekersoren prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialoncomparisonofstandardco2pressurepneumoperitoneuminsufflatorversusairseal
AT manzenreiterlisa prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialoncomparisonofstandardco2pressurepneumoperitoneuminsufflatorversusairseal
AT wundsamhelwig prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialoncomparisonofstandardco2pressurepneumoperitoneuminsufflatorversusairseal
AT kocholiverowen prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialoncomparisonofstandardco2pressurepneumoperitoneuminsufflatorversusairseal
AT knauermichael prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialoncomparisonofstandardco2pressurepneumoperitoneuminsufflatorversusairseal
AT emmanuelklaus prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialoncomparisonofstandardco2pressurepneumoperitoneuminsufflatorversusairseal