Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Open pneumoperitoneum because of quality assurance

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

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bateman BG, Kolp LA, Hoeger K (1996) Complications of laparoscopy: operative and diagnostic. Fertil Steril 66: 30–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Blumenthal D (1996) Quality of health care: Part 4. The origins of the quality-of-care debate. N Engl J Med 335: 1146–1149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Borgatta L, Gruss L, Barad D, Kaali SG (1990) Direct trocar insertion vs Veress needle use for laparoscopic sterilization. J Reprod Med 35: 891–894

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ (2001) Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a “trial effect.” J Clin Epidemiol. 54:217–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Byron JW, Markenson G, Miyazawa K (1993) A randomized comparison of Veress needle and direct trocar insertion for laparoscopy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 177: 259–262

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chapron C, Pierre F, Querleu D, Dubuisson JB (2000) Major vascular complications from gynecologic laparoscopy. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 28: 880–887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Donabedian A (1980) Methods for deriving criteria for assessing the quality of medical care. Med Care Rev 37: 653–698

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Geers J, Holden C (1996) Major vascular injury as a complication of laparoscopic surgery: a report of three cases and review of the literature. Am Surg. 62: 377–379

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gulla N, Patriti A, Lazzarini F, Tristaino B (2000) Our choice of the method to induce pneumoperitoneum in videolaparoscopic surgery. Minerva Chir 55: 371–375

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hasson HM (1978) Open laparoscopy vs closed laparoscopy: a comparison of complication rates. Adv Plan Parenthood 13: 41–50

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leape LL (1994) Error in medicine. JAMA 272: 1851–1857

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mayol J, Garcia Aguilar J, Ortiz Oshiro E, De Diego Carmona JA, Fernandez Represa JA (1997) Risks of the minimal access approach for laparoscopic surgery: multivariate analysis of morbidity related to umbilical trocar insertion. World J Surg 21: 529–533

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Moberg A-C, Montgomery A (2005). Primary access-related complications with laparoscopy: comparison of blind and open techniques 19: 1196–1199

  17. Nezhat FR, Silfen SL, Evans D, Nezhat C (1991) Comparison of direct insertion of disposable and standard reusable laparoscopic trocars and previous pneumoperitoneum with Veress needle. Obstet Gynecol 78: 148–150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nordestgaard AG, Bodily KC, Osborne RW Jr, Buttorff JD (1995) Major vascular injuries during laparoscopic procedures. Am J Surg 169: 543–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Peitgen K, Nimtz K, Hellinger A, Walz MK (1997) Offener zugang oder Veress-nadel bei laparoskopischen eingriffen? Ergebnisse einer prospektiv randomisierten studie. [Open approach or Veress needle in laparoscopic interventions? Results of a prospective randomized controlled study.] Chirurg 68: 910–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saunders C, Battistella F, Whetzel T, Stokes R (1998) Percutaneous diagnostic peritoneal lavage using a Veress needle versus an open technique: a prospective randomized trial. J Trauma 44: 883–888

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sigman HH, Fried GM, Garzon J, Hinchey EJ, Wexler MJ, Meakins JL, et al (1993) Risks of blind versus open approach to celiotomy for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3: 296–299

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Usal H, Sayad P, Hayek N, Hallak A, Huie F, Ferzli G (1998) Major vascular injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an institutional review of experience with 2589 procedures and literature review. Surg Endosc 12: 960–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vilos GA (2000) Litigation of laparoscopic major vessel injuries in Canada. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7: 503–509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M (2001) Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 323: 511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wherry DC, Marohn MR, Malanoski MP, Hetz SP, Rich NM (1996) An external audit of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the steady state performed in medical treatment facilities of the Department of Defense. Ann Surg 224: 145–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wherry DC, Rob CG, Marohn MR, Rich NM (1994) An external audit of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in medical treatment facilities of the Department of Defense. Ann Surg 220: 626–634

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hôpital Saint Eloi, 34295 Montpelliar Cedex 5

    Pr Bertrand Millat

Authors
  1. Pr Bertrand Millat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pr Bertrand Millat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bertrand Millat, P. Open pneumoperitoneum because of quality assurance. Surg Endosc 19, 1297–1299 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0111-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0111-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation