Randomized, prospective, single-blind trial of a new parallel technique of Veress pneumoperitoneum needle insertion versus the conventional closed method

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a new closed parallel technique of Veress needle insertion and to compare this method with the conventional closed approach.

Design: Sequential, randomized, prospective, single-blind clinical trial.

Setting: University hospital.

Patient(s): Women undergoing elective diagnostic and/or operative laparoscopy. Subjects (n = 200) were assigned randomly to undergo the conventional closed method (group 1; n = 100) or the new parallel technique (group 2; n = 100) of Veress needle insertion.

Intervention(s): Randomization of the patients was performed in the operating room. The investigator performed both diagnostic and operative laparoscopy in both study groups.

Main outcome measure(s): Safety and effectiveness of the needle insertion technique.

Result(s): There were no significant differences in demographics between the groups, or in the time required for Veress needle insertion to establish pneumoperitoneum. There were no nonlethal major or minor intraoperative complications associated with either laparoscopic approach.

Conclusion(s): There is no significant disadvantage to the parallel technique of Veress pneumoperitoneum needle insertion compared with the conventional closed approach. This new technique avoids the anatomic location of large vessels during insertion and may serve as a safeguard to decrease the potential for lethal laceration of a major vessel.