World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Study of Veress Needle and Visiport in Creating Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery

Sheela Prince, Packirisamy Kannan

Keywords : Laparoscopic access, Pneumoperitoneum, Veress needle, Visiport

Citation Information : Prince S, Kannan P. Comparative Study of Veress Needle and Visiport in Creating Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery. World J Lap Surg 2019; 12 (2):73-75.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1368

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Introduction: In minimal access surgery, the technique of first entry in the human body with the telescope and instruments is called the access technique. Laparoscopic access is of two types: closed and open access.1,2 Here we are analyzing the merits and demerits of two entry techniques and the incidence of complications in both techniques. Comparison is between the blind technique by using the Veress needle and the undervision technique by using Visiport. Aim of study: To assess, evaluate, and compare the incidence of complications in blind and clear view access techniques in laparoscopic surgery. Materials and methods: A total of 150 cases of laparoscopic surgeries using the Veress needle and 150 cases of laparoscopic surgeries done by Visiport have been reported. (All laparoscopic surgeries were done in the General Surgery Department in Rashid Hospital from January 1, 2015 to December 12, 2015.) Result: In this study of comparison, both techniques were seen to have been associated with their own complications. But Visiport is a safe and faster method of creating pneumoperitoneum, though there was a statistically insignificant major vascular injury. It happened with an inexperienced surgeon. Conclusion: Visiport is a safe and faster method of creating pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery.

  1. Mishra RK. Textbook of practical laparoscopic surgery. 2009. pp. 67–94.
  2. Opilka MN, Lorenc Z, Starzewski J. Laparoscopic access techniques. J Silesian Med Univ. Poland, ch. 6.
  3. Akbar M, Khan IA, Naveed D, et al. Comparison of closed and open methods of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Ayub Med Coll 2008;20(2):85–89.
  4. Kumar R, Hastir A, Bandlish MK, et al. Pneumoperitoneum by direct trocar insertion: safe laparoscopic access. J Evol Med Dent Sci 2015;4(15):2432–2437. DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2015/352.
  5. Toro A, Mannino M, Cappello G, et al. Comparison of two entry methods for laparoscopic port entry: technical point of view. Diagn Ther Endosc 2012;2012:305428. DOI: 10.1155/2012/305428.
  6. Vilos GA, Teernamian A, Dempster J, et al. Laparoscopic entry: a review of techniques, technologies and complications. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007;29(5):433–465. DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35496-2.
  7. Dunne N, Booth MI, Dehn TCB, et al. Establishing pneumoperitoneum: Veress or Hasson? The debate continues. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2011;93(1):22–24. DOI: 10.1308/003588411X12851639107557.
  8. Lapham T, Tarnoff M, Kim J, et al. Five-year experience with a bladed optical trocar in an uninsufflated abdomen in bariatric surgery. J Tufts-N Engl Med Cent 2007.
  9. Berch BR, Torquati A, Lutfi RE, et al. Experience with the optical access trocar for safe and rapid entry in the performance of laparoscopic gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 2006;20(8):1238–1241. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-005-0188-4.
  10. Access to the Abdomen, Manual of Strategic Decision Making, SAGES Manual page 1–3.
  11. Hashizume M, Sugimachi K. Needle and trocar injury during laparoscopic surgery in Japan. Surg Endosc 1997;11(12):1198–1201. DOI: 10.1007/s004649900568.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.