Preperitoneal insufflation pressure of the abdominal wall in a porcine model
- PMID: 33481111
- DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-08275-z
Preperitoneal insufflation pressure of the abdominal wall in a porcine model
Abstract
Background: Most complications and adverse events during laparoscopic surgery occur during initial entry into the peritoneal cavity. Among them, preperitoneal insufflation occurs when the insufflation needle is incorrectly placed, and the abdominal wall is insufflated. The objective of this study was to find a range for static pressure which is low enough to allow placement of a Veress needle into the peritoneal space without causing preperitoneal insufflation, yet high enough to separate abdominal viscera from the parietal peritoneum.
Methods: A pressure test was performed on twelve fresh porcine carcasses to determine the minimum preperitoneal insufflation pressure and the minimum initial peritoneal cavity insufflation pressure. Each porcine model had five needle placement categories. One category tested the initial peritoneal cavity insufflation pressure beneath the umbilicus. The four remaining categories tested the preperitoneal insufflation pressure at four different anatomical locations on the abdomen that can be used for initial entry. The minimum initial insufflation pressures from each carcass were then compared to the preperitoneal insufflation pressures to obtain an optimal range for initial insufflation.
Results: Increasing the insufflation pressure increased the probability of preperitoneal insufflation. Also, there was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the initial peritoneal cavity insufflation pressures (8.83 ± 4.19 mmHg) and the lowest preperitoneal pressures (32.54 ± 7.84 mmHg) (mean ± SD).
Conclusion: Pressures greater than 10 mmHg resulted in initial cavity insufflation and pressures greater than 20 mmHg resulted in preperitoneal insufflation in porcine models. By knowing the minimum pressure required to separate the layers of the abdominal wall, the risk of preperitoneal insufflation can be mitigated while obtaining safe and efficient entry into the peritoneal cavity. The findings in this research are not a guideline for trocar or Veress needle placement, but instead reveal preliminary data which may lead to more studies, technology, etc.
Keywords: Insufflation; Laparoscopic surgery; Pneumoperitoneum; Preperitoneal insufflation; Pressure profile test; Veress needle.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.
Similar articles
-
An evaluation of four tests used to ascertain Veres needle placement at closed laparoscopy.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005 Mar-Apr;12(2):153-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.01.011. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005. PMID: 15904620
-
Evaluation of the positioning of the tip of the Veress needle during creation of closed pneumoperitoneum in pigs.Acta Cir Bras. 2006 Jan-Feb;21(1):26-30. doi: 10.1590/s0102-86502006000100007. Epub 2006 Feb 13. Acta Cir Bras. 2006. PMID: 16491219
-
Laparoscopic Entry Technique Using a Veress Needle Insertion with and without Concomitant CO2 Insufflation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Nov-Dec;26(7):1383-1388. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.02.011. Epub 2019 Feb 23. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019. PMID: 30802609 Clinical Trial.
-
Laparoscopic entry: a review of techniques, technologies, and complications.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007 May;29(5):433-447. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35496-2. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007. PMID: 17493376 Review. English, French.
-
Access techniques: Veress needle--initial blind trocar insertion versus open laparoscopy with the Hasson trocar.Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1995 Feb;3(1):35-8. Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1995. PMID: 7757437 Review.
Cited by
-
Enhancing Veress Needle Entry with Proximal Vibroacoustic Sensing for Automatic Identification of Peritoneum Puncture.Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Aug 5;14(15):1698. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14151698. Diagnostics (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39125574 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Sakamoto A, Kikuchi I, Shimanuki H, Tejima K, Saito J, Sakai K, Kumakiri J, Kitade M, Takeda S (2017) Initial closed trocar entry for laparoscopic surgery: technique, umbilical cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 6:167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gmit.2017.04.001 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Molloy D, Kaloo PD, Cooper M, Nguyen TV (2002) Laparoscopic entry: a literature review and analysis of techniques and complications of primary port entry. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 42:246–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0004-8666.2002.00246.x - DOI - PubMed
-
- Vilos GA, Ternamian A, Dempster J, Laberge PY, Vilos G, Lefebvre G, Allaire C, Arneja J, Birch C, Dempsey T, Dempster J, Laberge PY, Leduc D, Turnbull V, Potestio F (2007) Laparoscopic entry: a review of techniques, technologies, and complications. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 29:433–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35496-2 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Pickett SD, Rodewald KJ, Billow MR, Giannios NM, Hurd WW (2010) Avoiding major vessel injury during laparoscopic instrument insertion. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 37:387–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2010.05.002 - DOI - PubMed
-
- van der Voort M, Heijnsdijk EAM, Gouma DJ (2004) Bowel injury as a complication of laparoscopy. BJS (Brit J Surg) 91:1253–1258. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4716 - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources