KL Karlson , MP Milad , A Gauf , A Chaudhari , S Tsai , L Yang , PC Voigt , L Yu , AA Emeka
{"title":"无抽吸安全:RCT挑战腹腔镜常规胃减压","authors":"KL Karlson , MP Milad , A Gauf , A Chaudhari , S Tsai , L Yang , PC Voigt , L Yu , AA Emeka","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2025.09.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study Objective</h3><div>The study aims to evaluate the necessity of intraoperative gastric decompression during gynecologic laparoscopy. The primary outcomes include (1) where the lower edge of the stomach resides with or without an orogastric tube and (2) whether experienced surgeons accurately detect group assignment.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Double-blind, randomized control trial. Participants undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy with umbilical entry were block-randomized (1:1) to orogastric decompression or none. Upon abdominal entry, the surgeon assessed adequacy of decompression, risk of gastric injury, and measured the distance between entry site and the stomach.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Operating room.</div></div><div><h3>Patients or Participants</h3><div>Low-risk participants undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy with umbilical entry were included. Participants were excluded for a variety of reasons including risk of delayed gastric emptying (e.g., GLP-1 receptor agonist) or suspected gastric insufflation during intubation.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>Intraoperative assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Measurements and Primary Results</h3><div>Of 150 participants enrolled, 139 were included in the study. Participants in the study and control groups did not significantly vary based on age (37.8 vs, 36.8), BMI (27.3 vs 27.9), or procedure type. A total of four complex gynecologic surgeons performed the intraoperative assessment, blinded to the assignment. Stomach decompression was rated “excellent” or “good” in 69% of cases without orogastric tube placement. The stomach was adequately decompressed in 100% of participants who had an orogastric tube and 97% of participants who did not. There were no cases of gastric injury. The surgeon thought an orogastric tube was present in 31.9% (n=23) of participants without gastric intubation. There was a significant difference between groups in percentage of cases with accurate assessment of gastric intubation (p=0.0001). The distance between the umbilicus and inferior aspect of the stomach correlated well with BMI.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Routine gastric decompression during gynecologic laparoscopy with umbilical entry is not necessary for low-risk patients. Regardless of placement of an orogastric tube, the stomach was adequately decompressed, without risk of injury, and without immediate postoperative negative experience.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":"32 11","pages":"Page S15"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safe without Suction: RCT Challenges Routine Gastric Decompression in Laparoscopy\",\"authors\":\"KL Karlson , MP Milad , A Gauf , A Chaudhari , S Tsai , L Yang , PC Voigt , L Yu , AA Emeka\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmig.2025.09.023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Study Objective</h3><div>The study aims to evaluate the necessity of intraoperative gastric decompression during gynecologic laparoscopy. The primary outcomes include (1) where the lower edge of the stomach resides with or without an orogastric tube and (2) whether experienced surgeons accurately detect group assignment.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Double-blind, randomized control trial. Participants undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy with umbilical entry were block-randomized (1:1) to orogastric decompression or none. Upon abdominal entry, the surgeon assessed adequacy of decompression, risk of gastric injury, and measured the distance between entry site and the stomach.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Operating room.</div></div><div><h3>Patients or Participants</h3><div>Low-risk participants undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy with umbilical entry were included. Participants were excluded for a variety of reasons including risk of delayed gastric emptying (e.g., GLP-1 receptor agonist) or suspected gastric insufflation during intubation.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>Intraoperative assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Measurements and Primary Results</h3><div>Of 150 participants enrolled, 139 were included in the study. Participants in the study and control groups did not significantly vary based on age (37.8 vs, 36.8), BMI (27.3 vs 27.9), or procedure type. A total of four complex gynecologic surgeons performed the intraoperative assessment, blinded to the assignment. Stomach decompression was rated “excellent” or “good” in 69% of cases without orogastric tube placement. The stomach was adequately decompressed in 100% of participants who had an orogastric tube and 97% of participants who did not. There were no cases of gastric injury. The surgeon thought an orogastric tube was present in 31.9% (n=23) of participants without gastric intubation. There was a significant difference between groups in percentage of cases with accurate assessment of gastric intubation (p=0.0001). The distance between the umbilicus and inferior aspect of the stomach correlated well with BMI.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Routine gastric decompression during gynecologic laparoscopy with umbilical entry is not necessary for low-risk patients. Regardless of placement of an orogastric tube, the stomach was adequately decompressed, without risk of injury, and without immediate postoperative negative experience.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"volume\":\"32 11\",\"pages\":\"Page S15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465025003607\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465025003607","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究目的探讨妇科腹腔镜术中胃减压的必要性。主要结果包括(1)胃下缘是否有胃管,以及(2)经验丰富的外科医生是否准确地检测到组分配。设计:双盲、随机对照试验。接受带脐入路妇科腹腔镜检查的参与者被分组随机(1:1)分为口胃减压组或无减压组。进入腹部后,外科医生评估减压的充分性、胃损伤的风险,并测量进入部位与胃之间的距离。SettingOperating房间。患者或参与者:接受脐部入路妇科腹腔镜检查的慢危参与者被纳入研究。由于各种原因,包括胃排空延迟的风险(例如,GLP-1受体激动剂)或插管期间可疑的胃填充,参与者被排除在外。InterventionsIntraoperative评估。测量和主要结果在150名参与者中,139人被纳入研究。研究组和对照组的参与者在年龄(37.8 vs 36.8)、BMI (27.3 vs 27.9)或手术类型上没有显著差异。共有四名复杂的妇科外科医生进行了术中评估,对任务不知情。在没有放置胃管的病例中,69%的胃减压被评为“优秀”或“良好”。100%有胃管的参与者和97%没有胃管的参与者的胃得到了充分的减压。无胃损伤病例。31.9% (n=23)未行胃插管的患者,外科医生认为存在口胃管。两组间准确评估胃插管的病例百分比差异有统计学意义(p=0.0001)。脐与胃下侧之间的距离与BMI有良好的相关性。结论低危患者脐入路妇科腹腔镜下无需常规胃减压。无论是否放置口胃管,胃都得到了充分的减压,没有损伤的风险,也没有立即的术后负面体验。
Safe without Suction: RCT Challenges Routine Gastric Decompression in Laparoscopy
Study Objective
The study aims to evaluate the necessity of intraoperative gastric decompression during gynecologic laparoscopy. The primary outcomes include (1) where the lower edge of the stomach resides with or without an orogastric tube and (2) whether experienced surgeons accurately detect group assignment.
Design
Double-blind, randomized control trial. Participants undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy with umbilical entry were block-randomized (1:1) to orogastric decompression or none. Upon abdominal entry, the surgeon assessed adequacy of decompression, risk of gastric injury, and measured the distance between entry site and the stomach.
Setting
Operating room.
Patients or Participants
Low-risk participants undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy with umbilical entry were included. Participants were excluded for a variety of reasons including risk of delayed gastric emptying (e.g., GLP-1 receptor agonist) or suspected gastric insufflation during intubation.
Interventions
Intraoperative assessment.
Measurements and Primary Results
Of 150 participants enrolled, 139 were included in the study. Participants in the study and control groups did not significantly vary based on age (37.8 vs, 36.8), BMI (27.3 vs 27.9), or procedure type. A total of four complex gynecologic surgeons performed the intraoperative assessment, blinded to the assignment. Stomach decompression was rated “excellent” or “good” in 69% of cases without orogastric tube placement. The stomach was adequately decompressed in 100% of participants who had an orogastric tube and 97% of participants who did not. There were no cases of gastric injury. The surgeon thought an orogastric tube was present in 31.9% (n=23) of participants without gastric intubation. There was a significant difference between groups in percentage of cases with accurate assessment of gastric intubation (p=0.0001). The distance between the umbilicus and inferior aspect of the stomach correlated well with BMI.
Conclusion
Routine gastric decompression during gynecologic laparoscopy with umbilical entry is not necessary for low-risk patients. Regardless of placement of an orogastric tube, the stomach was adequately decompressed, without risk of injury, and without immediate postoperative negative experience.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.