Low Pressure versus Standard Pressure Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-29 DOI:10.4103/njcp.njcp_802_23
A T Adenuga, F Olakada, C Ojo, J Aniero
{"title":"Low Pressure versus Standard Pressure Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"A T Adenuga, F Olakada, C Ojo, J Aniero","doi":"10.4103/njcp.njcp_802_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The creation of pneumoperitoneum using higher pressure is believed to be associated with increased postoperative abdominal pain.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to compare postoperative abdominal pain following low pressure laparoscopic appendectomy and standard pressure laparoscopic appendectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of 54 patients aged between 18 and 56 years with clinical and/or radiologic diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups: low pressure laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 26) and standard pressure laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 28). The intra-abdominal pressure was kept in either low pressure (9 mm Hg) or standard pressure (13 mm Hg). Abdominal and shoulder pain scores were assessed using the visual analog scale at 6 hours and 3 days post procedure. Postoperative analgesia requirement, duration of surgery, complications, and hospital stay were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups match for the demographic parameters. Three patients required conversion from low to standard pressure. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of abdominal pain (P = 0.86) and shoulder pain (P = 0.33), duration of surgery (P = 0.51), complications (P = 0.17), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.83).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of low pressure pneumoperitoneum did not reduce the incidence of abdominal pain in patients who had laparoscopic appendectomy. Patients with acute appendicitis can be treated with either low or normal pressure pneumoperitoneum depending on the experience of the surgeon.</p>","PeriodicalId":19431,"journal":{"name":"Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"27 6","pages":"754-758"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_802_23","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The creation of pneumoperitoneum using higher pressure is believed to be associated with increased postoperative abdominal pain.

Aim: This study aimed to compare postoperative abdominal pain following low pressure laparoscopic appendectomy and standard pressure laparoscopic appendectomy.

Methods: This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of 54 patients aged between 18 and 56 years with clinical and/or radiologic diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups: low pressure laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 26) and standard pressure laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 28). The intra-abdominal pressure was kept in either low pressure (9 mm Hg) or standard pressure (13 mm Hg). Abdominal and shoulder pain scores were assessed using the visual analog scale at 6 hours and 3 days post procedure. Postoperative analgesia requirement, duration of surgery, complications, and hospital stay were recorded.

Results: Both groups match for the demographic parameters. Three patients required conversion from low to standard pressure. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of abdominal pain (P = 0.86) and shoulder pain (P = 0.33), duration of surgery (P = 0.51), complications (P = 0.17), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.83).

Conclusion: The use of low pressure pneumoperitoneum did not reduce the incidence of abdominal pain in patients who had laparoscopic appendectomy. Patients with acute appendicitis can be treated with either low or normal pressure pneumoperitoneum depending on the experience of the surgeon.

腹腔镜阑尾切除术中的低压与标准压力腹腔积气:随机对照试验。
背景:目的:本研究旨在比较低压腹腔镜阑尾切除术和标准压力腹腔镜阑尾切除术的术后腹痛:这是一项前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验,54 名患者的年龄在 18 至 56 岁之间,临床和/或放射学诊断为急性阑尾炎。患者被随机分配到两组:低压腹腔镜阑尾切除术组(26 人)和标准压力腹腔镜阑尾切除术组(28 人)。腹腔内压力保持在低压(9 毫米汞柱)或标准压力(13 毫米汞柱)。术后 6 小时和 3 天时,使用视觉模拟量表评估腹部和肩部疼痛评分。记录术后镇痛需求、手术时间、并发症和住院时间:结果:两组患者的人口统计学参数一致。三位患者需要从低压转为标准压力。两组患者在腹痛(P = 0.86)和肩痛(P = 0.33)、手术时间(P = 0.51)、并发症(P = 0.17)和住院时间(P = 0.83)方面没有差异:结论:使用低压腹腔积气并不能降低腹腔镜阑尾切除术患者的腹痛发生率。急性阑尾炎患者可根据外科医生的经验选择低压或正常压力腹腔积气。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice
Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
275
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice is a Monthly peer-reviewed international journal published by the Medical and Dental Consultants’ Association of Nigeria. The journal’s full text is available online at www.njcponline.com. The journal allows free access (Open Access) to its contents and permits authors to self-archive final accepted version of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional / subject-based repository. The journal makes a token charge for submission, processing and publication of manuscripts including color reproduction of photographs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信