Influence of different gases used for laparoscopy (helium, carbon dioxide, room air, and xenon) on tumor volume, histomorphology, and leukocyte–tumor–endothelium interaction in intravital microscopy

  • S. Dähn
  • P. Schwalbach
  • S. Maksan
  • F. Wöhleke
  • A. Benner
  • C. Kuntz
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background

Previouse studies indicate that helium pneumoperitoneum used for laparoscopic surgery suppresses whereas carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum increases postoperative tumor growth. The pathomechanisms of decreased tumor growth by helium are unknown. This study was designed to examine the effect of the gases helium, carbon dioxide (CO2), and air, and xenon, which can be used to induce pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopy on tumor volume, histomorphology, and leukocyte–endothelium interaction measured by intravital microscopy in rats with implanted liver malignoma (Morris hepatoma 3924A).

Methods

In 46 rats, Morris hepatoma 3294A cells were implanted intrahepatically. After implantation, rats were randomized into two main groups. In the first main group, 10 animals were prepared for examination of leukocyte–endothelium interaction by intravital video microscopy and were randomized into two groups. Five days after implantation they underwent laparoscopy using either helium (n = 5) or CO2 (n = 5). Ten days after implantation the rats underwent intravital video microscopy to assess leukocyte–endothelium interaction in the tumor and liver vessels. In the second main group 36 rats were prepared for examination of tumor volume arid histomorphology. They were randomized into five groups. Five days after implantation they underwent laparoscopy using helium (n = 7), carbon dioxide (n = 7), room air (n = 7), or xenon (n = 8). The control group (n = 7) received anesthesia only. Rats were killed 10 days after tumor implantation to assess tumor volume and histomorphology.

Results

Compared to the control group or groups that received CO2, room air, or xenon for pneumoperitoneum, the establishment of helium pneumoperitoneum caused a significantly smaller tumor volume (Kruskal-Wallis test, p = 0.001; median tumor-volume: control group, 44 mm3; helium 19 mm3). There was no significant difference in histomorphology between the groups. There was only a statistically significant difference in the development of central tumor necrosis in accordance to tumor volume (Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.03). In the tumor samples, roller counts were statistically significantly higher in the helium group compared to the CO2 group (p = 0.04). For sticker counts, no statistically significant effects due to liver/tumor (p = 0.13) or treatment (p = 0.48) were observed.

Conclusions

There was a significant decrease in tumor volume using helium pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopy compared to the other gases. Here, we demonstrate that suppression of tumor growth is not due to variation of histomorphology. It seems that helium pneumoperitoneum effects a higher leukocyte–endothelium interaction and thereby a higher immune activation. This could be one explanation for the statistically significantly smaller tumor volume after laparoscopy with helium compared to laparoscopy with CO2.

Keywords

Laparoscopy Pneumoperitoneum Intravital microscopy Helium Histo morphology Tumor volume 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Allendorf, JD, Bessler, M, Kayton, M, Oesterling, SD, Treat, M, Nowygrod, R, Whelan, R 1995Increased tumor establishment and growth after laparotomy vs laparoscopy in a murine modelArch Surg130649653PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allendorf, JD, Bessler, M, Kayton, M, Whelan, R, Treat, M, Nowygrod, R 1995Tumor growth after laparotomy or laparoscopySurg Endosc94952CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clary, EM, Bruch, SM, Lau, CL, Ali, A, Chekan, EG, Garcia-Oria, MJ, Eubanks, S 2002Effects of pneumoperitoneum on hemodynamic and systemic immunologic responses to peritonitis in pigsJ Surg Res1083238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorrance, HR, Oien, K, O’Dwyer, PJ 1999Effects of laparoscopy on intraperitoneal tumor growth and distant metastases in an animal modelSurgery1263540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fitzgerald, SD, Andrus, CH, Baudendistel, L, Dahms, TE, Kaminski, DL 1992Hypercarbia during carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneumAm J Surg163186190Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fukumura, D, Yuan, F, Monsky, WL, Chen, Y, Jain, RK 1997Effect of host microenvironment on the microcirculation of human colon adenocarcinomaAm J Pathol151679688Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garcia-Caballero, M, Vara-Thorbeck, C 1993Evolution of postoperative ileus after laparoscopic cholecystectomySurg Endosc71417Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garcia-Caballero, M, Vara-Thorbeck, C, Salvi, M 1994Indications and advantages of laparoscopic-assisted colon resection for carcinoma in elderly patientsSurg Laparosc4110118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glaser, F, Sannwald, G, Buhr, HJ, Kuntz Ch, , Mayer, H, Klee, F, Herfarth Ch,  1995General stress response to conventional and laparoscopic cholecystectomyAnn Surg221372380PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groebe, K, Mueller Klieser, W 1996On the relation between size of necrosis and diameter of tumor spheroidsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys34395401Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hermanek, P, Wittekind, C 1994Inwieweit sind laparoskopische Verfahren in der onkologischen Chirurgie vertretbar?Der Chirurg652328Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hopkins, MP, Grueningen, V, Haller, NA, Holda, S 2002The effect of various insufflation gases on tumor implantation in an animal modelAm J Obstet Gynecol187994996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobi, C, Ordemann, J, Wenger, F, Sabat, R, Zieren, H, Müller, JM 1998The impact of elevated intraabdominal pressure, during laparoscopy on tumor growth and trocar metastases in a rat modelSurg Endosc12513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacobi, CA, Wenger, F, Sabat, R, Volk, T, Ordemann, J, Müller, JM 1998The impact of laparoscopy with carbon dioxide vs helium on immunological function and tumor growth in a rat modelDig Surg15110116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leister, I, Schuler, P, Vollmar, B, Stojanovic, T, Fuzesi, L, Becker, H, Markus, PM 2003A peritoneal cavity chamber for intravital microscopy of the liver under conditions of pneumoperitoneumSurg Endosc67939942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levy, BS,  et al. 1997Air embolism during gynaecologic endoscopic surgeryJ Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc4291292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maksan, SM, Paulo, H, Ryschich, E, Kuntz, C, Gebhard, MM, Klar, E, Schmidt, J 2003In vivo assessment of angioarchitecture and microcirculation in experimental liver cancer: a new model in ratsDig Dis Sci48279290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nduka, C, Puttick, M, Coates, P, Darzi, A 1998Enhancement of tumor cell metastatic potential in vitro and in vivo by CO2 pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopySurg Endosc12515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neuhaus, SJ, Ellis, TS, Barrett, MW, Rofe, AM, Jamieson, GG, Watson, DI 1999In vitro inhibition of tumor growth in a helium-rich environment: implications for laparoscopic surgeryAustr N Z J Surg695255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petzelt, C, Tischenberger, G, Schmehl, W, Kox, WJ 1999Xenon-induced inhibition of Ca2+-regulated transitions in the cell cycle of human endothelial cellsPflügers Arch Eur J Physiol437737744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rudston-Brown, B, Draper, PN, Warriner, B, Walley, KR, Phang, T 1997Venous gas embolism, a comparison of carbon dioxide and helium in pigsCan J Anaesth4411021107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rudston-Brown, B, MacLennan, D, Warriner, CB, Phang, PT 1996Effect of subcutaneous carbon dioxide insufflation on arterial pCO2,Am J Surg171460463Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saad, RS,  et al. 1998Fatal air embolism: a complication of manipulation of a cavitating metastatic lesion of the liverEur J Anaesthesiol15372375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmeding, M, Schwalbach, P, Reinshagen, S, Autschbach, F, Benner, A, Kuntz, C 2003Helium pneumoperitoneum reduces tumor recurrence after curative laparoscopic liver resection in rats in a tumor-bearing small animal modelSurg Endosc17951959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Targarona, EM, Martinez, J, Nadal, A, Balague, C, Cardesa, A, Pascual, S, Trias, M 1998Cancer dissemination during laparoscopic surgery: tubes, gas and cellsWorld J Surg225561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ye, T, Cattey, R, Henry, L 1994Laparoscopically assisted colon resections compare favourably with open techniqueSurg Laparosc Endosc42531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang, R, Frederick, J, Clarence, R, Philip, R, Narendra, T, Lawrence, L, Thomas, D, Grosfeld, J 1992A reproducible rat liver cancer model for experimental therapy: introducing a technique of intrahepatic tumor implantationJ Surg Res52193198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Dähn
    • 1
  • P. Schwalbach
    • 1
  • S. Maksan
    • 2
  • F. Wöhleke
    • 1
  • A. Benner
    • 3
  • C. Kuntz
    • 1
  1. 1.Surgical DepartmentUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Surgical DepartmentUniversity of MainzMainzGermany
  3. 3.German Cancer Research Center, Central Unit BiostatisticsHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations