Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2008 Apr-Jun;20(2):85-9.

Comparison of closed and open methods of pneumoperitonium in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Mohammad Akbar  1 , Ishtiaq Ali Khan, Danish Naveed, Irfanuddin Khattak, Arshad Zafar, Muhammad Salim Wazir, Asif Nawaz Khan, Zia-ur-Rehman
Affiliations
  • PMID: 19385465
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of closed and open methods of pneumoperitonium in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Mohammad Akbar et al. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2008 Apr-Jun.

Abstract

Background: Pneumoperitonium is the first step in laparoscopic surgery including cholecystectomy. Two commonly used methods to create pneumoperitonium are closed and open technique. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The current study was designed to compare these two techniques in terms of safety and time required to complete the procedure.

Methods: This was a randomized controlled prospective study conducted at Department of Surgery, Ayub Hospital Complex Abbottabad, from 1st June 2007 to 31st May 2008. Randomization was done into two groups randomly using sealed envelopes containing the questionnaire. Seventy envelopes were kept in the cupboard, containing 35 proformas for group A and 35 for group B. An envelope was randomly fetched and opened upon selection of the patient after taking the informed consent. Pneumoperitonium was created by closed technique in group A, and by open technique in group B. Time required for successful pneumoperitonium was calculated in each group. Failure to induce pneumoperitonium was determined for each technique. Time required to close the wounds at completion, total operating time and injuries sustained during induction of pneumoperitonium were compared in both techniques.

Result: Out of the total 70 patients included in study, 35 were in group A and 35 in group B. Mean time required for successful pneumoperitonium 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 minutes to 110 minutes in group B. Mean of total operating time was 78.34 and 67 minutes in group 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. In two cases in group A minor complications during creation of pneumoperitonium were observed while in group B no complication occurred. No patient died in the study.

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

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types