García LV, Gómez CR, Torres SQ

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 22-27
PDF size: 182.27 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: within laparoscopic surgeries, an incidence of bowel injury at the time of access has been estimated at 0.5% and injury to major blood vessels at 1%. Theoretical benefits of the optical trocar include early recognition of lesions under the assumption of improved visibility. Objective: to determine whether the optical trocar is a safer laparoscopic access method than the direct trocar, Veress needle, and Hasson open technique. Material and methods: observational, prospective, four-arm cohort of women from the gynaecology and laparoscopic surgery department of the Hospital Angeles Pedregal. The number of attempts and time to achieve cavity access and the presence of complications were quantified. Results: 192 laparoscopic surgeries were observed, distributed by consecutive cases in 4 arms: (90 Veress, 13 Hasson, 14 direct trocar, and 75 optical). Optical trocar showed an advantage in both access time and complication frequency. The number of attempts to enter the cavity was similar to the open technique. Conclusion: The data obtained in this study support the optical trocar cavity access technique as a safer method than the other techniques.

REFERENCES

1. Cuss A, Bhatt M, Abbott J. Coming to terms with the fact that the evidence for laparoscopic entry is as good as it gets. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22 (3): 332-341.

2. Bijen CB, Vermeulen KM, Mourits MJ, de Bock GH. Costs and effects of abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of controlled trials. PLoS One. 2009; 4 (10): e7340.

3. Delgado F, Blanes F, Gómez S, Aznar J, Trullenque J. Complicaciones de la cirugía laparoscópica Cir Esp. 2001; 69: 330-336.

4. Márquez F, Cea J, Rodríguez I, Polo A, Jiménez J, Jiménez A. Entrada laparoscópica directa umbilical con trocar sin neumoperitoneo previo: una alternativa segura. Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2013; 56 (6): 299-304.

5. Molloy D, Kaloo PD, Cooper M, Nguyen TV. Laparoscopic entry: a literature review and analysis of techniques and complications of primary port entry. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002; 42 (3): 246-254.

6. Merlin TL, Hiller JE, Maddern GJ, Jamieson GG, Brown AR, Kolbe A. Systematic review of the safety and effectiveness of methods used to establish pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg. 2003; 90 (6): 668-679.

7. González AJM, Rojas DO, Torres PJL, Vega BM, Farrera GJ, Contreras RVR et al. Utilización del trócar óptico en varios procedimientos laparoscópicos, para la creación segura del neumoperitoneo. Un estudio multicéntrico con 1,372 pacientes. Rev Mex Cir Endoscop. 2004; 5 (4): 182-187.

8. Otroski J, Jacobs M. History of laparoscopy. In: M G, editor. Laparoscopy surgery. United States of America: McGraw-Hill; 2003. pp. 3-4.

9. 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.

10. Phillips JM, Hulka JE, Peterson HB. American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, 1,982 membership survey. J Reprod Med. 1984; 29: 592-594.

11. Catarci M, Carlini M, Gentileschi P, Santoro E. Major and minor injuries during the creation of pneumoperitoneum. A multicenter study on 12,919 cases. Surg Endosc. 2001; 15 (6): 566-569.

12. Ahmad G, Baker J, Finnerty J, Phillips K, Watson A. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 1 (1): CD006583. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub5.

13. Payne JH. Complications of laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Sem Lap Surg. 1997; 4 (3): 166-181.

14. Ibarra E, Haro L, Murgúia J, Corbalá C, Kelly V et al. Experiencia quirúrgica en cirugía laparoscópica, Rev Med IMSS. 2003; 41 (1): 75-80.