These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using abdominal wall retraction. Hemodynamics and gas exchange, a comparison with conventional pneumoperitoneum.
    Author: Meijer DW, Rademaker BP, Schlooz S, Bemelman WA, de Wit LT, Bannenberg JJ, Stijnen T, Gouma DF.
    Journal: Surg Endosc; 1997 Jun; 11(6):645-9. PubMed ID: 9171125.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Disadvantages related to CO2 pneumoperitoneum have led to development of the abdominal wall retractor (AWR), a device designed to facilitate laparoscopic surgery without conventional pneumoperitoneum (15 mmHg CO2). We investigated the effects of the AWR on hemodynamics and gas exchange in humans. We also investigated whether the use of an AWR imposed extra technical difficulties for the surgeon. A pilot study revealed that cholecystectomy without low-pressure pneumoperitoneum was technically impossible. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial: Twenty patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated into group 1: AWR with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (5 mmHg), or group 2: conventional pneumoperitoneum (15 mmHg). RESULTS: Surgery using the AWR lasted longer, 72 +/- 16 min (mean +/- SD) vs 50 +/- 18 min compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were no differences between the groups with respect to hemodynamic parameters, although a small reduction of the cardiac output was observed using conventional pneumoperitoneum (from 3.9 +/- 0.7 to 3. 2 +/- 1.1 l/min) and an increase during AWR (from 4.2 +/- 0.9 to 5.2 +/- 1.5 l/min). Peak inspiratory pressures were significantly higher during conventional pneumoperitoneum compared to AWR. A slight decrease in pH accompanied by an increase in CO2 developed during pneumoperitoneum and during the use of the AWR. In both groups arterial PO2 decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the view was impaired during use of the AWR and therefore its use was difficult and time-consuming. Possible advantages of this devices' effects on hemodynamics and ventilatory parameters could not be confirmed in this study.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]