Background and aims: The aim of this randomized trial in the acute porcine model was to compare the quality of transgastric peritoneoscopy with the use of low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum and to evaluate the respective associated cardiopulmonary changes.
Methods: For transgastric peritoneoscopy, carbon dioxide was insufflated via the endoscope for a constant intraperitoneal pressure of 6 mmHg or 12 mmHg in 9 pigs each. The quality of transgastric peritoneoscopy was rated on a visual analog scale (0 mm, min.; 100 mm, max.) by the endoscopist, who was blinded to the intraperitoneal pressure. The cardiac index and global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI, reflecting preload) were measured every 3 minutes by transpulmonary thermodilution. The following were also recorded: heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI, reflecting afterload), peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), pH, P CO2 , and P O2 .
Results: The quality of transgastric peritoneoscopy with the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum was not inferior to that obtained using standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum (87.0 mm vs. 87.3 mm; P < 0.05). In both groups we observed a statistically significant rise in MAP and SVRI. The increase in SVRI was less pronounced during low-pressure peritoneum (P = 0.042), indicating a reduced stress response in comparison to standard-pressure peritoneum. There were no relevant differences between the groups in relation to cardiac index, GEDVI, and heart rate. An intra-abdominal pressure of 6 mmHg also led to better oxygenation (P = 0.031 for difference in P O2 between the two groups) due to lower peak inspiratory pressure (P < 0.001 for difference). There were only slight differences between the groups with regard to pH and P CO2 .
Conclusions: Pneumoperitoneum of 12 – 16 mmHg is used for standard laparoscopy. For NOTES, low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is sufficient and is associated with an improved cardiopulmonary response compared to standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum.
References
1
Bingener J, Krishnegowda N K, Michalek J E.
Immunologic parameters during NOTES compared with laparoscopy in a randomized blinded porcine trial.
Surg Endosc.
2009;
23
178-181
2
Bingener J, Michalek J, van Sickle K, Schwesinger W.
Randomized blinded trial shows relative thrombocytopenia in natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery compared with standard laparoscopy in a porcine survival model.
Surg Endosc.
2008;
22
2067-2071
3
McGee M F, Schomisch S J, Marks J M et al.
Late phase TNF-alpha depression in natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) peritoneoscopy.
Surgery.
2008;
143
318-328
4
Trunzo J A, McGee M F, Cavazzola L T et al.
Peritoneal inflammatory response of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) versus laparoscopy with carbon dioxide and air pneumoperitoneum.
Surg Endosc.
2010;
24
1727-1736
5
Dubcenco E, Assumpcao L, Dray X et al.
Adhesion formation after peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy in a survival porcine model: comparison of laparotomy, laparoscopy, and transgastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES).
Endoscopy.
2009;
41
971-978
6
von Delius S, Sager J, Feussner H et al.
Carbon dioxide versus room air for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and comparison with standard laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2010;
72
161-169
7
Rattner D W.
SAGES/ASGE Joint Committee on NOTES. NOTES: Where have we been and where are we going?.
Surg Endosc.
2008;
22
1143-1145
8
McGee M F, Rosen M J, Marks J et al.
A reliable method for monitoring intraabdominal pressure during natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery.
Surg Endosc.
2007;
21
672-676
9
von Delius S, Wilhelm D, Feussner H et al.
Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: cardiopulmonary safety of transesophageal mediastinoscopy.
Endoscopy.
2010;
42
405-412
10
Rocca G D, Costa M G, Pietropaoli P.
How to measure and interpret volumetric measures of preload.
Curr Opin Crit Care.
2007;
13
297-302
11
Huber W, Umgelter A, Reindl W et al.
Volume assessment in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis: a comparison of intrathoracic blood volume index, central venous pressure, and hematocrit, and their correlation to cardiac index and extravascular lung water index.
Crit Care Med.
2008;
36
2348-2354
12
Kantsevoy S V, Jagannath S B, Niiyama H et al.
A novel safe approach to the peritoneal cavity for per-oral transgastric endoscopic procedures.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2007;
65
497-500
13
Bergstrom M, Swain P, Park P O.
Measurements of intraperitoneal pressure and the development of a feedback control valve for regulating pressure during flexible transgastric surgery (NOTES).
Gastrointest Endosc.
2007;
66
174-178
14
Neudecker J, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E et al.
The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery clinical practice guideline on the pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery.
Surg Endosc.
2002;
16
1121-1143
15
von Delius S, Huber W, Feussner H et al.
Effect of pneumoperitoneum on hemodynamics and inspiratory pressures during natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): an experimental, controlled study in an acute porcine model.
Endoscopy.
2007;
39
854-861
16
Meireles O, Kantsevoy S V, Kalloo A N et al.
Comparison of intraabdominal pressures using the gastroscope and laparoscope for transgastric surgery.
Surg Endosc.
2007;
21
998-1001
17
Mutoh T, Lamm W J, Embree L J et al.
Abdominal distension alters regional pleural pressures and chest wall mechanics in pigs in vivo.
J Appl Physiol.
1991;
70
2611-2618
18
Moran E A, Gostout C J, McConico A L, Bingener J.
Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery used for perforated viscus repair is feasible using lower peritoneal pressures than laparoscopy in a porcine model.
J Am Coll Surg.
2010;
210
474-479
19
Voermans R P, Sheppard B, van Berge H enegouwen et al.
Comparison of transgastric NOTES and laparoscopic peritoneoscopy for detection of peritoneal metastases.
Ann Surg.
2009;
250
255-259
20
Bergman S, Fix D J, Volt K et al.
Do gastrotomies require repair after endoscopic transgastric peritoneoscopy? A controlled study.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2010;
71
1013-1017
21
Ko C W, Shin E J, Buscaglia J M et al.
Preliminary pneumoperitoneum facilitates transgastric access into the peritoneal cavity for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a pilot study in a live porcine model.
Endoscopy.
2007;
39
849-853
S. von DeliusMD
Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München II. Medizinische Klinik
Ismaninger Str. 22 81675 Munich Germany
Fax: +49-89-41404905
Email: stefan_ruckert@yahoo.de