Comparison of low and standard pneumoperitoneum pressure in laparoscopic pediatric inguinal hernia repair

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques Pub Date : 2024-04-10 DOI:10.5114/wiitm.2024.138769
Liang Chen, Yunxiao Lyu
{"title":"Comparison of low and standard pneumoperitoneum pressure in laparoscopic pediatric inguinal hernia repair","authors":"Liang Chen, Yunxiao Lyu","doi":"10.5114/wiitm.2024.138769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<b>Introduction</b><br/>The effectiveness and safety of low pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic pediatric inguinal hernia repair is unclear and required to explore.<br/><br/><b>Aim</b><br/>To evaluate the benefits of low (LPP) vs. standard pneumoperitoneum pressure (SPP) in laparoscopic pediatric inguinal hernia repair.<br/><br/><b>Material and methods</b><br/>We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with pediatric inguinal hernia. The patients were divided into LPP and SPP groups. Anesthesia and postoperative characteristics were analyzed.<br/><br/><b>Results</b><br/>We enrolled 169 eligible patients in this study. Anesthesia and postanesthesia care unit times in the LPP group were lower than those in the SPP group (p = 0.00, p = 0.01, respectively). The LPP group had lower values for peak partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide (PETCO2; mm Hg) (33.37 ±4.09 vs. 36.56 ±4.08), trough PETCO2 (38.33 ±5.04 vs. 40.46 ±4.14), and PETCO2 at the end of surgery (35.29 ±4.59 vs. 38.76 ±4.22). The LPP group required less sufentanil citrate (8.76 ±4.07 ml vs. 18.03 ±16.04 ml) and midazolam (1.56 ±0.45 ml vs 1.79 ±0.59 ml) vs. the SPP group, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding postoperative complications.<br/><br/><b>Conclusions</b><br/>LPP was associated with shorter anesthesia and postanesthesia care unit times, and lower PETCO2 values compared with SPP. Compared with the SPP group, the LPP group had comparable operation times and postoperative complications. However, long-term outcome studies are needed.<br/><br/>","PeriodicalId":49361,"journal":{"name":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2024.138769","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction
The effectiveness and safety of low pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic pediatric inguinal hernia repair is unclear and required to explore.

Aim
To evaluate the benefits of low (LPP) vs. standard pneumoperitoneum pressure (SPP) in laparoscopic pediatric inguinal hernia repair.

Material and methods
We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with pediatric inguinal hernia. The patients were divided into LPP and SPP groups. Anesthesia and postoperative characteristics were analyzed.

Results
We enrolled 169 eligible patients in this study. Anesthesia and postanesthesia care unit times in the LPP group were lower than those in the SPP group (p = 0.00, p = 0.01, respectively). The LPP group had lower values for peak partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide (PETCO2; mm Hg) (33.37 ±4.09 vs. 36.56 ±4.08), trough PETCO2 (38.33 ±5.04 vs. 40.46 ±4.14), and PETCO2 at the end of surgery (35.29 ±4.59 vs. 38.76 ±4.22). The LPP group required less sufentanil citrate (8.76 ±4.07 ml vs. 18.03 ±16.04 ml) and midazolam (1.56 ±0.45 ml vs 1.79 ±0.59 ml) vs. the SPP group, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding postoperative complications.

Conclusions
LPP was associated with shorter anesthesia and postanesthesia care unit times, and lower PETCO2 values compared with SPP. Compared with the SPP group, the LPP group had comparable operation times and postoperative complications. However, long-term outcome studies are needed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹腔镜小儿腹股沟疝修补术中低腹腔积气压力与标准腹腔积气压力的比较
目的评估腹腔镜小儿腹股沟疝修补术中低气腹压力(LPP)与标准气腹压力(SPP)的益处。患者被分为 LPP 组和 SPP 组。分析了麻醉和术后特征。LPP 组的麻醉时间和麻醉后护理单元时间低于 SPP 组(分别为 p = 0.00 和 p = 0.01)。LPP 组的潮气末二氧化碳分压峰值(PETCO2;mm Hg)(33.37 ±4.09 vs. 36.56 ±4.08)、PETCO2 谷值(38.33 ±5.04 vs. 40.46 ±4.14)和手术结束时的 PETCO2 值(35.29 ±4.59 vs. 38.76 ±4.22)均低于 SPP 组。与 SPP 组相比,LPP 组所需的枸橼酸舒芬太尼(8.76 ±4.07 ml vs. 18.03 ±16.04 ml)和咪达唑仑(1.56 ±0.45 ml vs. 1.79 ±0.59 ml)分别较少。结论 LPP与SPP相比,麻醉时间和麻醉后护理单元时间更短,PETCO2值更低。与 SPP 组相比,LPP 组的手术时间和术后并发症相当。不过,还需要进行长期的结果研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
23.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques serves as a forum for exchange of multidisciplinary experiences in fields such as: surgery, gynaecology, urology, gastroenterology, neurosurgery, ENT surgery, cardiac surgery, anaesthesiology and radiology, as well as other branches of medicine dealing with miniinvasive techniques.
期刊最新文献
Early-stage voiding function following uni- versus bilateral inferior vesical vessel resection during therapeutic lateral lymph node dissection with autonomic nerve sparing for advanced low rectal cancer (with video) Effect and prognosis of endoscopic intracranial hematoma removal and hematoma puncture and drainage in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage Outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for pulmonary metastasis: who benefits the most? Meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of rectal tumors Clinical comparative study of laparoscopic partial splenectomy and open partial splenectomy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1