DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20214368

A comparative study of the open versus closed method of pneumoperitoneum creation in laparoscopic surgery

Bhavesh V. Vaishnani, Kapil R. Kachhadiya, Mohit R. Chauhan

Abstract


Background: The main challenge facing the laparoscopic surgery is the primary abdominal access, as it is usually a blind procedure and associated with many complications including life threading vascular and visceral injuries. Techniques for the creation of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopy include the standard technique of insufflation after insertion of the Veress needle (closed method), open laparoscopy (Hasson technique) and many others.

Methods: This is observational study conducted in the department of General surgery, PDUMC, Rajkot from September 2018 to September 2020 comprising of 100 cases, 50 cases from each methods. The patients admitted in our department for Laparoscopic surgery was taken up for the study. The Purpose of our study is to assess the practicality of both methods in creation of pneumoperitoneum and to compare both methods with regards to ease of performance and incidence of complications.

Results: Average size of incision (p=-5.426) is more in open method, hence more incidence of minor complications like multiple attempts, gas leak at port site and port site bleeding in open method while less duration for creating pneumoperitoneum (p=0) as compared to closed method. While there is no major complications in either groups.

Conclusions: Open technique is as good as closed technique, and is good alternative to closed technique.


Keywords


Pneumoperitoneum, laparoscopic surgery, port site incisional hernia

Full Text:

PDF

References


Hasson HM. Open laparoscopy as a method of access in laparoscopic surgery. Gynaecol Endosc. 1999;8: 353-62.

Schafer M, Lauper M, Krahenbuhl L. Trocar and Veress needle injuries during laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:275-80.

Bonjer HJ, Hazebroek EJ, Kazemier G, Giuffrida MC, Meijer WS, Lange JF. Open versus closed establishment of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg. 1997;84:599-602.

Chapron C, Cravello L, Chopin N, Kreiker G, Blanc B, Dubuisson JB. Complications during set-up procedures for laparoscopy in gynaecology: open laparoscopy does not reduce the risk of major complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82: 1125-9.

Chandler JG, Corson SL, Way LW. Three spectra of laparoscopic entry access injuries. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192:478-90.

Neudecker J, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E, Bergamaschi R, Bonjer HJ, Cuschieri A. et al. The European association for endoscopic surgery clinical practice guideline on the pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:1121-43.

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;68:910-3.

Sigman HH, Fried GM, Garzon J, Hinchey EJ, Wexler MJ, Meakins JL, et al. Risks of blind versus open approach to celiotomy for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1993;3:296-9.

Zakherah M. Direct trocar versus veress needle entry for laparoscopy: a randomized clinical trial. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2010;69:260-3.

Moberg A.C, Petersson U. Direct trocar versus veress needle entry for laparoscopy: a randomized clinical trial. Scand J Surg. 2012;96:297-300.

Shailesh K, Shubhendu B. Veress needle: a safe technique in modern laparoscopic era. World J Laparoscop Surg. 2013;6(1):1-5.

Ilias J, Jatin B, Bhavesh V. Open vs. closed method of establishing pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. Int J Res Med Sci. 2016;5(1):13-7.