Modified Hasson technique versus Veress technique: a comparative study


  • Robinson George Department of General Surgery, Al Azhar Medical College, Idukki, Kerala, India
  • Mebin Mathew Department of General Surgery, Al Azhar Medical College, Idukki, Kerala, India
  • Veerabhadra Radhakrishna Department of Pediatric Surgery, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
  • Ashna Rahman Department of General Surgery, Al Azhar Medical College, Idukki, Kerala, India
  • Aswini Thenamangalath Department of General Surgery, Al Azhar Medical College, Idukki, Kerala, India



Hasson technique, Veress needle, Seroma, Rural, Laparoscopy


Background: There are two techniques of port placement for laparoscopy, Veress and Hasson. Both have their own advantages of disadvantages. Plenty of new modifications of these techniques have been tried to reduce the risks. We modified Hasson’s technique and evaluated whether the technique is better than the standard Veress technique.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was carried out in the Department of General Surgery, Al Azhar Medical College Hospital, India from January 2013 to December 2018.

Results: There were 156 patients in group A who underwent laparoscopy by Modified Hasson technique. The Veress technique was used in 149 patients who belonged to group B. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of age and indications for the surgery. The entry time (the time to place the first port) for group A was significantly lesser than that of group B (2.08±0.65 min vs. 4.59±0.53 min; p=0.000). There were a total of two complications in group A which was significantly lesser than that of group B (14; p=0.002). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of extraperitoneal port placement, intraperitoneal injury, failure to enter the abdomen, port site seroma, port site infection, port site hematoma, and mortality. But, port site hematoma was significantly lesser in group A compared to group B (0 vs. 5; p=0.027).

Conclusions: Modified Hasson’s entry was found to be much better than Veress needle entry due to its simplicity for beginners in laparoscopy, lesser time of achieving pneumoperitoneum and lesser duration of surgery in our study.


Philips PA, Amaral JF. Abdominal access complications in laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192:525-36.

Bhoyrul S, Vierra MA, Nezhat CR, Krummel TM, Way LW. Trocar injuries in laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192(6):677-83.

Curet MJ. Special problems in laparoscopic surgery. Previous abdominal surgery, obesity, and pregnancy. Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80:1093-110.

Agresta F, De Simone P, Ciardo LF, Bedin N. Direct trocar insertion vs Veress needle in nonobese patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures: a randomized prospective single-center study. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(12):1778-81.

Hasson HM. A modified instrument and method for laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1971;15:110:886-7.

Larobina M, Nottle P. Complete evidence regarding major vascular injuries during laparoscopic access. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2005;15:119-23.

Hasson HM. Open laparoscopy: a report of 150 cases. J Reprod Med. 1974;12:234.

George R, Radhakrishna V, Mathew M, Thenamangalath A, Rahman A. Modified Hasson technique: a quick and safe entry of first port into the abdomen. Int Surg J. 2019;6(8):2802-5.

Oshinsky GS, Smith AD. Laparoscopic needles and trocars: an overview of designs and complications. J Laparoendosc Surg. 1992;2:117-125.

Bongard F, Dubecz S, Klein S. Complications of therapeutic laparoscopy. Curr Probl Surg. 1994;31(11):857-924.

Hasson HM. Open laparoscopy vs. closed laparoscopy: a comparison of complication rates. Adv Plan Parent. 1978;13:41-50.

Lal P, Singh L, Agarwal PN, Kant R. Open port placement of the first laparoscopic port: a safe technique. JSLS. 2004;8(4):364-6.

Perunovic RM, Scepanovic RP, Stevanovic PD, Ceranic MS. Complications during the establishment of laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009;19(1):1-6.

Borgatta L, Gruss L, Barad D, Kaali SG. Direct trocar insertion vs. Verres needle use for laparoscopic sterilization. J Reprod Med. 1990;35(9):891-4.

Byron JW, Markenson G, Miyazawa K. A randomized comparison of Verres needle and direct trocar insertion for laparoscopy. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993;177(3):259-62.

Cogliandolo A, Manganaro T, Saitta FP, Micali B. Blind versus open approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized study. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1998;8(5):353-5.

Peitgen K, Nimtz K, Hellinger A, Walz MK. Open approach or Veress needle in laparoscopic interventions? Results of a prospective randomized controlled study. Chirurg. 1997;68(9):910-3.

Saunders CJ, Battistella FD, Whetzel TP, Stokes RB. Percutaneous diagnostic peritoneal lavage using a Veress needle versus an open technique: a prospective randomized trial. J Trauma. 1998;44(5):883-8.

Gett RM, Joseph MG. A safe technique for the insertion of the Hasson cannula. Aust N Z J Surg. 2004;74(9):797-8.

Antevil JL, Bhoyrul S, Brunson ME, Vierra MA, Swadia ND. Safe and rapid laparoscopic access--a new approach. World J Surg. 2005;29(6):800-3.

Long JB, Giles DL, Cornella JL, Magtibay PM, Kho RM, Magrina JF. Open laparoscopic access technique: review of 2010 patients. JSLS. 2008;12(4):372-5.

Garry R. Complications of laparoscopic entry. Gynaecol Endosc. 1997;6:319–29.

Munro MG. Laparoscopic access: complications, technologies, and techniques. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;14:365-74.






Original Research Articles