World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Open and Closed Entry Techniques for Creation of Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery in Terms of Time Consumption, Entry-related Complications and Failure of Technique

Muzzafar Zaman, Samita Singal, Rikki Singal, Aliya Shah, Karamjot Singh Sandhu, Bir Singh, Aadhar Khera, Sagar Bassi

Citation Information : Zaman M, Singal S, Singal R, Shah A, Sandhu KS, Singh B, Khera A, Bassi S. Comparison of Open and Closed Entry Techniques for Creation of Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery in Terms of Time Consumption, Entry-related Complications and Failure of Technique. World J Lap Surg 2015; 8 (3):69-71.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1250

Published Online: 01-12-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To compare the open and closed methods of creating pneumoperitoneum for doing various laparoscopic procedures in terms of their safety, operating time and other parameters.

Settings and design

A prospective randomized double blind study.

Materials and methods

This was a randomized controlled prospective study conducted at Department of General and minimal access surgery, MMIMSR Medical College, Ambala Haryana from August 2013 to December 2015. Pneumoperitoneum was created by closed technique in group A, and by open technique in group B. Time required for successful pneumoperitoneum was calculated in each group. Failure to induce pneumoperitoneum was determined for each technique. Time required to induce pneumoperitoneum, total operating time, air leakage and injuries sustained during induction of pneumoperitoneum were compared in both techniques.

Result

Out of the total 200 patients included in study, 100 were in group A and 100 in group B. Mean time required for successful pneumoperitoneum was 9.17 minutes in group A and 8.11 minutes in group B. Total operating time ranged from 55 minutes to 130 minutes in group A and from 45 to 110 minutes in group B. Mean of total operating time was 78.34 and 67 minutes in groups A and B respectively. Mean time needed to close the wound was 9.88 minutes in group A and 4.97 minutes in group B. Failure of technique was noted in three patients in group A while no failure was experienced in group B. Air leakage was seen in five patients in group B and none in group B. In two cases in group A minor complications during creation of pneumoperitoneum were observed while in group B no complication occurred. Port site infection and port site hernia was seen in group B and none in group A. No patient died in the study. Two patients were having preperitoneal insufflation which was presented as injury due to induction of pneumoperitoneum.

Conclusion

We concluded from this study that open technique of pneumoperitoneum was, less time consuming and safer than the closed technique.

How to cite this article

Zaman M, Singal S, Singal R, Shah A, Sandhu KS, Singh B, Khera A, Bassi S. Comparison of Open and Closed Entry Techniques for Creation of Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery in Terms of Time Consumption, Entryrelated Complications and Failure of Technique. World J Lap Surg 2015;8(3):69-71.


PDF Share
  1. Laparoscopic trocar injuries: a report from US FDA center for devices and radiological health. Systematic Technology Assessment of Medical Products Committee 2005;25:1-14.
  2. Open laparoscopy: a modified Hasson technique. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) 2015;54(4):52-56.
  3. Establishing pneumoperitoneum: verres or hasson? The debate continues. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2011 Jan;93(1):22-24.
  4. Techniques of pneumoperitoneum. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1993;3(1):42-43.
  5. Open laparoscopy without special instruments or sutures. Comparison with a closed technique. J Reprod Med 1994;39(5):393-397.
  6. Major and minor injuries during the creation of pneumoperitoneum: a multicenter study on 12,919 cases. Surg Endosc 2001;15(6):566-567.
  7. Cardiovascular and respiratory changes and convalescence in laparoscopic colonic surgery comparison between carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum and gasless laparoscopy. Arch Surg 1999;134(10):1112-1118.
  8. Physiologic effects of pneumoperitoneum. Am J Surg 1994;167(2):281-286.
  9. Complication of laparoscopy: a prospective multicentre study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104(5):595-600.
  10. Pneumoperitoneum needle and trocar injuries in laparoscopy: a survey on possible contributing factors and prevention. J Reprod Med 1990;35(5):485-490.
  11. Laparoscopy entry: a literature review and analysis of techniques and complications of primary port entry. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;14(3):365-374.
  12. Direct trocar insertion versus veress needle insertion in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1999 Mar;177(3):247-249.
  13. Laparoscopic entery; a review of techniques, technologies and complications. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007;29(5):433-465.
  14. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;16(2):CD006583
  15. Safe laparoscopic entry guided by Veress needle CO2-insufflation pressure. J Am Assoc Gynaecol Laparosc 2003;10(3):415-420.
  16. Evaluation and comparison of postoperative levels of serum bilirubin, serum transaminases and alkaline phosphatase in laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus open cholecystectomy. J Gastrointest Oncol 2015;6(5):479-486. Available at: http://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2015.058
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.