Low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

被引:93
作者
Gurusamy, Kurinchi Selvan [1 ,2 ]
Samraj, Kumarakrishnan [3 ]
Davidson, Brian R. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Royal Free Hosp, Univ Dept Surg, London NW3 2QG, England
[2] Univ Coll Sch Med, London, England
[3] John Radcliffe Hosp, Dept Gen Surg, Oxford OX3 9DU, England
来源
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS | 2009年 / 02期
关键词
DIFFERENT INTRAABDOMINAL PRESSURES; PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; DIFFERENT INSUFFLATION PRESSURES; BASE-BALANCE ALTERATIONS; ABDOMINAL-WALL LIFT; CARBON-DIOXIDE; EMPIRICAL-EVIDENCE; SURGERY; PAIN; METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1002/14651858.CD006930.pub2
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background A pneumoperitoneum of 12 to 16 mmHg is used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lower pressures are claimed to be safe and effective in decreasing cardiopulmonary complications and pain. Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of low pressure pneumoperitoneum compared with standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Search strategy We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until November 2008 for identifying randomised trials using search strategies. Selection criteria Only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status were considered for the review. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data on mortality, morbidity, conversion to open cholecystectomy, pain, analgesic requirement, operating time, hospital stay, patient satisfaction, additional measures to increase vision, and cardiopulmonary parameters. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference ( MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models with RevMan 5 based on available case-analysis. Main results Fifteen trials randomised 690 patients to low pressure (n = 336) and standard pressure ( n = 354). All the trials were of high risk of bias. There was no difference in the mortality, morbidity, or conversion to open cholecystectomy between the groups. The intensity of pain was lower in the low pressure group at various time points. The incidence of shoulder pain was lower in the low pressure group (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90). The analgesic consumption was also lower. The operating time was similar between the groups ( MD 2.30 minutes; 95% CI 0.42 to 4.18). Because of the high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data in seven trials, it was not possible to conclude about the safety of low pressure pneumoperitoneum. Authors' conclusions Low pressure pneumoperitoneum appears effective in decreasing pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety of low pressure pneumoperitoneum has to be established.
引用
收藏
页数:59
相关论文
共 66 条
[1]   Abdominal wall lift versus positive-pressure capnoperitoneum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy - Randomized controlled trial [J].
Alijani, A ;
Hanna, GB ;
Cuschieri, A .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2004, 239 (03) :388-394
[2]  
[Anonymous], REV MAN REVMAN 5 0
[3]  
[Anonymous], NIH CONS STAT GALLST
[4]  
[Anonymous], ASA PHYS STAT CLASS
[5]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE COLLABORATI
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2008, StatsDirect statistical software
[7]  
BAKKEN IJ, 2002, TIDSSKRIFT NORSKE LA, V124, P2376
[8]   Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum combined with intraperitoneal saline washout for reduction of pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy - A prospective randomized study [J].
Barczynski, M ;
Herman, RM .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2004, 18 (09) :1368-1373
[9]   A prospective randomized trial on comparison of low-pressure (LP) and standard-pressure (SP) pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy [J].
Barczynski, M ;
Herman, RM .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2003, 17 (04) :533-538
[10]  
Barczynski Marcin, 2002, Folia Med Cracov, V43, P51