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
Observational Study
. 2024 Dec 18;410(1):12.
doi: 10.1007/s00423-024-03579-3.

Low vs. conventional intra-abdominal pressure in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective cohort study

Mohammed Hamid  1   2 , Shafquat Zaman  1   3   4 , Omar Ezzat Saber Mostafa  5 , Alex Deutsch  6 , Jonty Bird  1 , Anthony Kawesha  1 , Michael Reay  6 , Irmeet Banga  6 , Anna Williams  6 , Peter Waterland  1 , Akinfemi Akingboye  1   7
Affiliations
Observational Study

Low vs. conventional intra-abdominal pressure in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective cohort study

Mohammed Hamid et al. Langenbecks Arch Surg. .

Abstract

Purpose: Low intraabdominal pressure (IAP) during laparoscopy is associated with improved post-operative outcomes across a variety of surgical specialties. A prospective cohort study was undertaken to assess post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS) with low (8mmHg) versus conventional (15mmHg) IAP.

Methods: A prospective real-world observational study of patients undergoing LCRS in a single-centre, between June 2020 and June 2023 was performed. Operative procedures for diverse colonic pathology such as diverticular disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and colorectal cancers (CRC) were included. The evaluated primary outcomes were post-operative pain, return of gastrointestinal motility, and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were the overall safety profile including intra- and post-operative complications and morbidity. Outcomes of interest were investigated using multivariate analysis.

Results: A total of 120 patients were included of which 69 (57.5%) were male. Median age and BMI of the cohort was 67 years (51-75 years) and 27 kg/m2 (24-32 kg/m2), respectively. 61 (50.8%) patients were categorised as an ASA grade 3. Two (1.7%) patients had diverticular disease; 31 (25.9%) had IBD, and 87 (72.4%) were operated on for colonic malignancy. Low IAP (8mmHg) was used in 53 (44.2%) cases, whilst the remainder (55.8%) had IAP set at 15mmHg (conventional). Low-pressure surgery was associated with improved intraoperative lung compliance (p < 0.001) and peak inspiratory pressures up to 6 h (p < 0.001); reduced analgesic requirement (p ≤ 0.028), and decreased postoperative pain both at rest (p = 0.001) and on exertion (p < 0.001). Moreover, low IAP was associated with an earlier time to pass flatus postoperatively (p = 0.047) with no significant difference in length of hospital stay (p = 0.574). Additionally, no significant difference was observed between the groups for outcomes including median operating time (p = 0.089), conversion to open surgery (p = 0.056), overall complication rate (p = 0.102), and 90-day mortality (p = 0.381).

Conclusion: Low IAP use during LCRS is feasible with a comparable safety profile to conventional laparoscopy. Intra-operative respiratory physiology is improved with reduced postoperative pain and analgesic requirement, and earlier time to pass flatus. Future rationally designed; well-powered, randomised trials are needed to understand the benefits of low intra-peritoneal pressure during laparoscopic colorectal resections.

Keywords: Colorectal surgery; Laparoscopy; Pneumoperitoneum; Postoperative pain.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Conflict of interest: The authors of this manuscript declare no conflict of interest, no funding or financial support to declare. Local institutional approval was granted to conduct this study, and ethical approval was waivered.

References

    1. Panis Y, Maggiori L, Caranhac G, Bretagnol F, Vicaut E (2011) Mortality after colorectal cancer surgery: a French survey of more than 84,000 patients. Ann Surg [Internet].;254(5):738–743; discussion 743-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823604ac
    1. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WCJ et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol [Internet].;6(7):477–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70221-7
    1. Kang S-B, Park JW, Jeong S-Y et al (2010) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol [Internet].;11(7):637–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70131-5
    1. Lacy AM, García-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S et al (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet [Internet].;359(9325):2224–2229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09290-5
    1. Klarenbeek BR, Veenhof AA, Bergamaschi R et al (2009) Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis decreases major morbidity rates: a randomized control trial: short-term results of the Sigma Trial. Ann Surg [Internet].;249(1):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818e416a

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources