The Impact of Intraoperative CO2 Pneumoperitoneum Pressure in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Roy Mahapatra, Matthew Fok, Nicola Manu, Maria Cameron, Aimee Johnson, Aaron Kler, Hayley Fowler, Rachael Clifford, Dale Vimalachandran
{"title":"The Impact of Intraoperative CO2 Pneumoperitoneum Pressure in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Roy Mahapatra, Matthew Fok, Nicola Manu, Maria Cameron, Aimee Johnson, Aaron Kler, Hayley Fowler, Rachael Clifford, Dale Vimalachandran","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pneumoperitoneum is widely used in gastrointestinal surgery, particularly for laparoscopic or robotic procedures, with suggested advantages associated with low pressure. While existing data predominantly focuses on laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the assessment of intra-abdominal pressures in other gastrointestinal surgeries remains unexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study conducted an electronic literature search for randomized control trials comparing low-pressure pneumoperitoneum to standard or high-pressure counterparts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 26 articles meeting inclusion criteria, encompassing 2077 patients, 15 demonstrated positive associations with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. No significant difference in postoperative pain was found in the remaining papers. Methodological variations, diverse outcome reporting, and a prevalent high risk of bias precluded meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study highlights substantial outcome variability, urging cautious interpretation of aggregated results. Despite positive associations in specific cases, insufficient evidence was found to support the superiority of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. The study recommends future research employing validated patient-reported outcome measures and standardized reporting to help guide the development of evidence-based guidelines and optimize patient care in abdominal surgeries.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001325","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pneumoperitoneum is widely used in gastrointestinal surgery, particularly for laparoscopic or robotic procedures, with suggested advantages associated with low pressure. While existing data predominantly focuses on laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the assessment of intra-abdominal pressures in other gastrointestinal surgeries remains unexplored.

Methods: This study conducted an electronic literature search for randomized control trials comparing low-pressure pneumoperitoneum to standard or high-pressure counterparts.

Results: Out of 26 articles meeting inclusion criteria, encompassing 2077 patients, 15 demonstrated positive associations with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. No significant difference in postoperative pain was found in the remaining papers. Methodological variations, diverse outcome reporting, and a prevalent high risk of bias precluded meta-analysis.

Conclusions: The study highlights substantial outcome variability, urging cautious interpretation of aggregated results. Despite positive associations in specific cases, insufficient evidence was found to support the superiority of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. The study recommends future research employing validated patient-reported outcome measures and standardized reporting to help guide the development of evidence-based guidelines and optimize patient care in abdominal surgeries.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
103
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques is a primary source for peer-reviewed, original articles on the newest techniques and applications in operative laparoscopy and endoscopy. Its Editorial Board includes many of the surgeons who pioneered the use of these revolutionary techniques. The journal provides complete, timely, accurate, practical coverage of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques and procedures; current clinical and basic science research; preoperative and postoperative patient management; complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery; and new developments in instrumentation and technology.
期刊最新文献
Rectus Sheath and Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks for Preaponeurotic Endoscopic Repair: Is the Double Block the Solution for Postoperative Pain Management? The Impact of Intraoperative CO2 Pneumoperitoneum Pressure in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review. Factors Predicting Major Complications and Mortality in Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: 8 Years of Experience of a Tertiary Surgery Center. Clinical Results of Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage With Different Hepatic Access and Methods in the Treatment of Obstructive Jaundice. Rectal Eversion as an Anus-sparing Technique in Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection With Double Stapling Anastomosis: Long-term Functional Results.
×
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