Cargando…

Comparison of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure versus Tidal Volume-Induced Ventilator-Driven Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver in Robotic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study

Background: We evaluated the pulmonary effects of two ventilator-driven alveolar recruitment maneuver (ARM) methods during laparoscopic surgery. Methods: Sixty-four patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy were randomized into two groups: incrementally increasing positive end-expiratory pressure in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jung, Kangha, Kim, Sojin, Kim, Byung Jun, Park, MiHye
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8432066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34501368
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10173921
_version_ 1783751077509726208
author Jung, Kangha
Kim, Sojin
Kim, Byung Jun
Park, MiHye
author_facet Jung, Kangha
Kim, Sojin
Kim, Byung Jun
Park, MiHye
author_sort Jung, Kangha
collection PubMed
description Background: We evaluated the pulmonary effects of two ventilator-driven alveolar recruitment maneuver (ARM) methods during laparoscopic surgery. Methods: Sixty-four patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy were randomized into two groups: incrementally increasing positive end-expiratory pressure in a stepwise manner (PEEP group) versus tidal volume (V(T) group). We performed each ARM after induction of anesthesia in the supine position (T1), after pneumoperitoneum in the Trendelenburg position (T2), and after peritoneum desufflation in the supine position (T3). The primary outcome was change in end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) before and 5 min after ARM at T3, measured by electrical impedance tomography. Results: The PEEP group showed significantly higher increasing EELI 5 min after ARM than the V(T) group at T1 and T3 (median [IQR] 460 [180,800] vs. 200 [80,315], p = 0.002 and 280 [170,420] vs. 95 [55,175], p = 0.004, respectively; PEEP group vs. V(T) group). The PEEP group showed significantly higher lung compliance and lower driving pressure at T1 and T3. However, there was no significant difference in EELI change, lung compliance, or driving pressure after ARM at T2. Conclusions: The ventilator-driven ARM by the increasing PEEP method led to greater improvements in lung compliance at the end of laparoscopic surgery than the increasing V(T) method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8432066
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84320662021-09-11 Comparison of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure versus Tidal Volume-Induced Ventilator-Driven Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver in Robotic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study Jung, Kangha Kim, Sojin Kim, Byung Jun Park, MiHye J Clin Med Article Background: We evaluated the pulmonary effects of two ventilator-driven alveolar recruitment maneuver (ARM) methods during laparoscopic surgery. Methods: Sixty-four patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy were randomized into two groups: incrementally increasing positive end-expiratory pressure in a stepwise manner (PEEP group) versus tidal volume (V(T) group). We performed each ARM after induction of anesthesia in the supine position (T1), after pneumoperitoneum in the Trendelenburg position (T2), and after peritoneum desufflation in the supine position (T3). The primary outcome was change in end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) before and 5 min after ARM at T3, measured by electrical impedance tomography. Results: The PEEP group showed significantly higher increasing EELI 5 min after ARM than the V(T) group at T1 and T3 (median [IQR] 460 [180,800] vs. 200 [80,315], p = 0.002 and 280 [170,420] vs. 95 [55,175], p = 0.004, respectively; PEEP group vs. V(T) group). The PEEP group showed significantly higher lung compliance and lower driving pressure at T1 and T3. However, there was no significant difference in EELI change, lung compliance, or driving pressure after ARM at T2. Conclusions: The ventilator-driven ARM by the increasing PEEP method led to greater improvements in lung compliance at the end of laparoscopic surgery than the increasing V(T) method. MDPI 2021-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8432066/ /pubmed/34501368 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10173921 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Jung, Kangha
Kim, Sojin
Kim, Byung Jun
Park, MiHye
Comparison of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure versus Tidal Volume-Induced Ventilator-Driven Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver in Robotic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study
title Comparison of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure versus Tidal Volume-Induced Ventilator-Driven Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver in Robotic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study
title_full Comparison of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure versus Tidal Volume-Induced Ventilator-Driven Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver in Robotic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study
title_fullStr Comparison of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure versus Tidal Volume-Induced Ventilator-Driven Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver in Robotic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure versus Tidal Volume-Induced Ventilator-Driven Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver in Robotic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study
title_short Comparison of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure versus Tidal Volume-Induced Ventilator-Driven Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver in Robotic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study
title_sort comparison of positive end-expiratory pressure versus tidal volume-induced ventilator-driven alveolar recruitment maneuver in robotic prostatectomy: a randomized controlled study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8432066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34501368
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10173921
work_keys_str_mv AT jungkangha comparisonofpositiveendexpiratorypressureversustidalvolumeinducedventilatordrivenalveolarrecruitmentmaneuverinroboticprostatectomyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT kimsojin comparisonofpositiveendexpiratorypressureversustidalvolumeinducedventilatordrivenalveolarrecruitmentmaneuverinroboticprostatectomyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT kimbyungjun comparisonofpositiveendexpiratorypressureversustidalvolumeinducedventilatordrivenalveolarrecruitmentmaneuverinroboticprostatectomyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT parkmihye comparisonofpositiveendexpiratorypressureversustidalvolumeinducedventilatordrivenalveolarrecruitmentmaneuverinroboticprostatectomyarandomizedcontrolledstudy