Comparison of intraabdominal pressures using the gastroscope and laparoscope for transgastric surgery
- First Online:
- 67 Downloads
The peroral transgastric endoscopic approach for intraabdominal procedures appears to be feasible, although multiple aspects of this approach remain unclear. This study aimed to measure intraperitoneal pressure in a porcine model during the peroral transgastric endoscopic approach, comparing an endoscopic on-demand insufflator/light source with a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator.
All experiments were performed with 50-kg female pigs under general anesthesia. A standard upper endoscope was advanced perorally through a gastric wall incision into the peritoneal cavity. The peritoneal cavity was insufflated with operating room air from an endoscopic light source/insufflator. Intraperitoneal pressure was measured by three routes: (1) through the endoscope biopsy channel, (2) through a 5-mm transabdominal laparoscopic port, and (3) through a 16-gauge Veress needle inserted into the peritoneal cavity through the anterior abdominal wall. The source of insufflation alternated between on-demand manual insufflation through the endoscopic light source/insufflator using room air and a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator using carbon dioxide (CO2).
Six acute experiments were performed. Intraperitoneal pressure measurements showed good correlation regardless of measurement route and were independent of the type of insufflation gas, whether room air or CO2. On-demand insufflation with the endoscopic light source/insufflator resulted in a wide variation in pressures (range, 4–32 mmHg; mean, 16.0 ± 11.7). Intraabdominal pressures using a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator demonstrated minimal fluctuation (range, 8–15 mmHg; mean, 11.0 ± 2.2 mmHg) around a predetermined value.
Use of an on-demand unregulated endoscopic light source/insufflator for translumenal surgery can cause large variation in intraperitoneal pressures and intraabdominal hypertension, leading to the risk of hemodynamic and respiratory compromise. Safety may favor well-controlled intraabdominal pressures achieved with a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator.
KeywordsAutoregulated laparoscopic insufflator Endoscopic on-demand insufflator/light source Intraabdominal pressure Intraperitoneal pressure Peroral transgastric endoscopic approach PTE NOTES
- 1.Barnes GE, Laine GA, Giam PY, Smith EE, Granger HJ (1985) Cardiovascular responses to elevation of intraabdominal hydrostatic pressure. Am J Physiol 248: R209Google Scholar
- 3.Booker WM, French DM, Molano PA (1947) Further studies on the acute effects of intraabdominal pressure. Am J Physiol 149: 92–98Google Scholar
- 7.Jagannath SB, Kantsevoy SV, Vaughn CA, Chung SS, Cotton PB, Gostout CJ, Hawes RH, Pasricha PJ, Scorpio DG, Magee CA, Pipitone LJ, Kalloo AN (2005) Peroral transgastric endoscopic ligation of fallopian tubes with long-term survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 61: 449–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Kantsevoy SV, Hu B, Jagannath SB, Vaughn CA, Beitler DM, Chung SS, Cotton PB, Gostout CJ, Hawes RH, Pasricha PJ, Magee CA, Pipitone LJ, Talamini MA, Kalloo AN (2006) Transgastric endoscopic splenectomy: Is it possible? Surg Endosc 20(3): 522–5Google Scholar
- 14.Odeberg S, Ljungqvist O, Svenberg T, Gannedahl P, Backdahl M, Von Rosen A, Sollevi A (1994) Haemodynamic effects of pneumoperitoneum and the influence of posture during anaesthesia for laparoscopic surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 38: 276–283Google Scholar
- 16.Rattner D, Kalloo A (2006) ASGE/SAGES Working Group on Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery. October 2005. Surg Endosc 20: 329–333Google Scholar