Skip to main content
Log in

Primary access-related complications with laparoscopy: Comparison of blind and open techniques

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background:

Severe or fatal complications attributable to gas embolus, major vascular injury, or visceral injury are rare but have been reported after blind access to the abdominal cavity in laparoscopy. The open access technique has been introduced with the aim to reduce these injuries. This report evaluates access-related complications with both blind and open access techniques in a teaching hospital using standardized techniques for both methods.

Methods:

Two groups of patients at different times from a prospective database were compared. A retrospective analysis of 2,297 patients treated using blind access between 1992 and 1996 were compared with 2,066 patients treated using open step-by-step access between 1999 and 2001 regarding access-related complications. An accreditation program for both techniques was mandatory for the 67 surgeons involved.

Results:

No case of gas embolus or major vascular injury was seen in either group. Four cases of visceral injuries (0.17%) in the blind access group and one case (0.05%) in the open group were seen (p = 0.337). All the injuries were recognized and repaired intraoperatively with no further postoperative complications.

Conclusion:

Our educational efforts to make both techniques as safe as possible were successful, as evidenced by a minimum of access-related complications. Because no evidence exists to show that the blind access technique is superior in any aspect, the open technique is recommended for access to the abdominal cavity in laparoscopy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bemelman WA, Dunker MS, Busch ORC, Den Boer KT, De Wit LTH, Gouma DJ (2000) Efficacy of establishment of pneumoperitoneum with the Veress needle, Hasson trocar, and modified blunt trocar (TrocDoc): a randomized study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 10: 325–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernik TR, Trocciola SM, Mayer DA, Patane J, Czura CJ, Wallack MK (2001) Balloon blunt-tip for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: improvement over the traditional Hasson and Veress needle methods. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 11: 73–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhoyrul S, Payne J, Steffes B, Swansrtom L, Way LW (2000) A randomized prospective study of radially expanding trocars in laparoscopic surgery. J Gastrointestinal Surg 4: 392–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhoyrul S, Vierra MA, Nezhat CR, Krummel TM, Way LW (2001) Trocar injuries in laparoscopic surgery. Am Coll Surg 6: 677–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonjer HJ, Hazebroek EJ, Kazemier G, Giuffrida MC, Meijer WS, Lange JF (1997) Open vs closed establishment of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 84: 599–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Champault G, Cazacu F, Taffinder N (1996) Serious trocar accidents in laparoscopic surgery: a French survey of 103, 852 operations. Surg Laparosc Endosc 6: 376–370

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cogliandolo A, Manganaro T, Saitta FP, Micali B (1998) Blind vs open approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8: 353–355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gutt CN, Oniu T, Schemmer P, Kraus T, Buchler MW (2004) Circulatory and respiratory complications of carbon dioxide insufflation. Dig Surg 21: 95–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hanney RM, Carmalt HL, Merret N, Tait N (1999) Use of the Hasson cannula producing major vascular injury at laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 13: 1238–1240

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hashizume M, Sugimachi K (1997) Needle and trocar injury during laparoscopic surgery in Japan. Surg Endosc 11: 1198–1201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hasson HM (1999) Open laparoscopy as a method of access in laparoscopic surgery. Gynaecol Endosc 8: 353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Magrina JF (2002) Complications of laparoscopic surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 45: 469–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Neudecker J, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E, Bergamaschi R, Bonjer J, Cuschieri A, Fuchs KH, Jacobi Ch, Jansen FW, Kovusalo AM, Lacy A, McMahon MJ, Millat B, Schwenk W (2002) The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery clinical practice guideline on the pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 16: 1121–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Peitgen K, Nimtz K, Hellinger A, Walz MK (1997) Offener zugang oder Veress-nadel bei laparoskopischen eingriffen? Ergebnisse einer prospektiv randomisierten studie. Chirurg 68:910–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Semm K, Semm I (1999) Safe insertion of trocars and the Veress needle using standard equipment and the 11 security steps. Gynaecol Endosc 8: 339–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A.-C. Moberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moberg, AC., Montgomery, A. Primary access-related complications with laparoscopy: Comparison of blind and open techniques. Surg Endosc 19, 1196–1199 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2256-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2256-6

Keywords

Navigation