Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 22, Issue 12, pp 2686–2697 | Cite as

Laparoscopic entry techniques: clinical guideline, national survey, and medicolegal ramifications

Article

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to establish criteria for safe laparoscopic entry through a systematic literature search and evidence-based medicine appraisal, to determine surgeon preferences for laparoscopic entry in the United Kingdom, and to appraise the medicolegal ramifications of complications arising from laparoscopic entry.

Methods

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE (1996–2007) was performed as well as a national surgeon survey by questionnaire (May–December 2006).

Results

Laparoscopic entry criteria involving 10 steps were established based on the systematic literature search and evidence-based critical appraisal. The national survey had 226 respondents, with the majority aware of the Middlesbrough consensus or Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists [RCOG]-sourced guidance. There was considerable variation in preferred laparoscopic entry techniques. Currently, there is clear judicial guidance on the medicolegal stance toward laparoscopic entry-related complications.

Conclusions

Despite widespread awareness of laparoscopic entry guidelines, there remains considerable variation in the techniques adopted in clinical practice. Unless practice concurs with recommended guidance, women undergoing laparoscopy will be exposed to increased unnecessary operative risk. Laparoscopic entry-related injury in an uncomplicated woman is considered negligent practice according to UK legal case law.

Keywords

Laparoscopic entry Guidelines Laparoscopy Pneumoperitoneum Artificial Surgical procedures Minimally invasive Intraoperative complications 

References

  1. 1.
    Van Der Voort M, Heijnsdijk EA, Gouma DJ (2004) Bowel injury as a complication of laparoscopy. Br J Surg 91(10):1253–1258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tarik A, Fehmi C (2004) Complications of gynaecological laparoscopy–a retrospective analysis of 3572 cases from a single institute. J Obstet Gynaecol 24(7):813–816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Orlando R, Palatini P, Lirussi F (2003) Needle and trocar injuries in diagnostic laparoscopy under local anesthesia: what is the true incidence of these complications? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13(3):181–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roviaro GC, Varoli F, Saguatti L, Vergani C, Maciocco M, Scarduelli A (2002) Major vascular injuries in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 16(8):1192–1196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhoyrul S, Vierra MA, Nezhat CR, Krummel TM, Way LW (2001) Trocar injuries in laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 192(6):677–683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Munro MG (2002) Laparoscopic access: complications, technologies, and techniques. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 14(4):365–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Philips PA, Amaral JF (2001) Abdominal access complications in laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 192(4):525–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chapron C, Pierre F, Querleu D, Dubuisson JB (2000) Major vascular complications from gynecologic laparoscopy. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 28(12):880–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chapron CM, Pierre F, Lacroix S, Querleu D, Lansac J, Dubuisson JB (1997) Major vascular injuries during gynecologic laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg 185(5):461–465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chapron C, Querleu D, Mage G et al (1992) Complications of gynecologic laparoscopy. Multicentric study of 7,604 laparoscopies. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 21(2):207–213Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leonard F, Lecuru F, Rizk E, Chasset S, Robin F, Taurelle R (2000) Perioperative morbidity of gynecological laparoscopy. A prospective monocenter observational study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 79(2):129–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leng J, Lang J, Huang R, Liu Z, Sun D (2000) Complications in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Chin Med Sci J 15(4):222–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mac CC, Lecuru F, Rizk E, Robin F, Boucaya V, Taurelle R (1999) Morbidity in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: results of a prospective single-center study. Surg Endosc 13(1):57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marret H, Harchaoui Y, Chapron C, Lansac J, Pierre F (1998) Trocar injuries during laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. Report from the French Society of Gynaecological Laparoscopy. Gynacological Endoscopy 7(5):235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosen DM, Lam AM, Chapman M, Carlton M, Cario GM (1998) Methods of creating pneumoperitoneum: a review of techniques and complications. Obstet Gynecol Surv 53(3):167–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nezhat C, Childers J, Nezhat F, Nezhat CH, Seidman DS (1997) Major retroperitoneal vascular injury during laparoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod 12(3):480–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soderstrom RM (1997) Injuries to major blood vessels during endoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4(3):395–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bateman BG, Kolp LA, Hoeger K (1996) Complications of laparoscopy–operative and diagnostic. Fertil Steril 66(1):30–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Champault G, Cazacu F (1995) Laparoscopic surgery: injuries caused by trocars. (French Survey 1994) in reference to 103,852 interventions. J Chir (Paris) 132(3):109–113Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saville LE, Woods MS. (1995) Laparoscopy and major retroperitoneal vascular injuries (MRVI). Surg Endosc 9(10):1096–1100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nordestgaard AG, Bodily KC, Osborne RW Jr., Buttorff JD. (1995) Major vascular injuries during laparoscopic procedures. Am J Surg 169(5):543–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hanney RM, Alle KM, Cregan PC. (1995) Major vascular injury and laparoscopy. Aust N Z J Surg 65(7):533–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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(5):377–379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sokol AI, Chuang K, Milad MP (2003) Risk factors for conversion to laparotomy during gynecologic laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10(4):469–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baggish MS (2003) Analysis of 31 cases of major-vessel injury associated with gynecologic laparoscopy operations. J Gynecol Surg 19(2):63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fuller J, Ashar BS, Carey-Corrado J (2005) Trocar-associated injuries and fatalities: an analysis of 1399 reports to the FDA. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(4):302–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jansen FW, Kolkman W, Bakkum EA, de Kroon CD, Trimbos-Kemper TC, Trimbos JB (2004) Complications of laparoscopy: an inquiry about closed- versus open-entry technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190(3):634–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chapron C, Cravello L, Chopin N, Kreiker G, Blanc B, Dubuisson JB (2003) Complications during set-up procedures for laparoscopy in gynecology: open laparoscopy does not reduce the risk of major complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 82(12):1125–1129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chapron C, Pierre F, Querleu D, Dubuisson JB (2001) Complications of gynaecological laparoscopy. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 29(9):605–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chapron C, Fauconnier A, Goffinet F, Breart G, Dubuisson JB (2002) Laparoscopic surgery is not inherently dangerous for patients presenting with benign gynaecologic pathology. Results of a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 17(5):1334–1342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chapron C, Querleu D, Bruhat MA et  al (1998) Surgical complications of diagnostic and operative gynaecological laparoscopy: a series of 29,966 cases. Hum Reprod 13(4):867–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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(6):668–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Catarci M, Carlini M, Gentileschi P, Santoro E (2001) Major and minor injuries during the creation of pneumoperitoneum. A multicenter study on 12,919 cases. Surg Endosc 15(6):566–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schafer M, Lauper M, Krahenbuhl L (2001) Trocar and Veress needle injuries during laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 15(3):275–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang PH, Lee WL, Yuan CC et al (2001) Major complications of operative and diagnostic laparoscopy for gynecologic disease. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 8(1):68–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Harkki-Siren P, Sjoberg J, Kurki T (1999) Major complications of laparoscopy: a follow-up Finnish study. Obstet Gynecol 94(1):94–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Harkki-Siren P, Kurki T (1997) A nationwide analysis of laparoscopic complications. Obstet Gynecol 89(1):108–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jansen FW, Kapiteyn K, Trimbos-Kemper T, Hermans J, Trimbos JB (1997) Complications of laparoscopy: a prospective multicentre observational study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104(5):595–600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brosens I, Gordon A, Campo R, Gordts S (2003) Bowel injury in gynecologic laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10(1):9–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chandler JG, Corson SL, Way LW (2001) Three spectra of laparoscopic entry access injuries. J Am Coll Surg 192(4):478–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Corson SL, Chandler JG, Way LW (2001) Survey of laparoscopic entry injuries provoking litigation. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 8(3):341–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    El Banna M, Abdel-Atty M, El Meteini M, Aly S (2000) Management of laparoscopic-related bowel injuries. Surg Endosc 14(9):779–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chapron C, Pierre F, Harchaoui Y et al (1999) Gastrointestinal injuries during gynaecological laparoscopy. Hum Reprod 14(2):333–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schrenk P, Woisetschlager R, Rieger R, Wayand W (1996) Mechanism, management, and prevention of laparoscopic bowel injuries. Gastrointest Endosc 43(6):572–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bishoff JT, Allaf ME, Kirkels W, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR, Schroder F (1999) Laparoscopic bowel injury: incidence and clinical presentation. J Urol 161(3):887–890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ferriman A (2000) Laparoscopic surgery: two thirds of injuries initially missed. West J Med 173(6):372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gordts S, Watrelot A, Campo R, Brosens I (2001) Risk and outcome of bowel injury during transvaginal pelvic endoscopy. Fertil Steril 76(6):1238–1241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gett RM, Joseph MG (2004) A safe technique for the insertion of the Hasson cannula. ANZ J Surg 74(9):797–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hasson HM, Rotman C, Rana N, Kumari NA (2000) Open laparoscopy: 29-year experience. Obstet Gynecol 96(5 Pt 1):763–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hasson HM (1999) Open laparoscopy as a method of access in laparoscopic surgery. Gynacol Endosc 8(6):353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gunenc MZ, Yesildaglar N, Bingol B, Onalan G, Tabak S, Gokmen B (2005) The safety and efficacy of direct trocar insertion with elevation of the rectus sheath instead of the skin for pneumoperitoneum. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 15(2):80–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Agresta F, De Simone P, Ciardo LF, Bedin N (2004) Direct trocar insertion vs Veress needle in nonobese patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures: a randomized prospective single-center study. Surg Endosc 18(12):1778–1781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rahman MM, Mamun AA (2003) Direct trocar insertion: alternative abdominal entry technique for laparoscopic surgery. Mymensingh Med J 12(1):45–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kaloo P, Cooper M, Reid G (2002) A prospective multicentre study of laparoscopic complications related to the direct-entry technique. Gynaecol Endosc 11(2):67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    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(1):148–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kaali SG, Barad DH (1992) Incidence of bowel injury due to dense adhesions at the sight of direct trocar insertion. J Reprod Med 37(7):617–618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Byron JW, Markenson G, Miyazawa K (1993) A randomized comparison of Verres needle and direct trocar insertion for laparoscopy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 177(3):259–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hill DJ, Maher PJ (1996) Direct cannula entry for laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4(1):77–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jacobson MT, Osias J, Bizhang R et al (2002) The direct trocar technique: an alternative approach to abdominal entry for laparoscopy. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 6(2):169–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schoonderwoerd L, Swank DJ (2005) The role of optical access trocars in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Technol Int 14:61–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jirecek S, Drager M, Leitich H, Nagele F, Wenzl R (2002) Direct visual or blind insertion of the primary trocar. Surg Endosc 16(4):626–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kaali SG (2002) Complications associated with optical-access laparoscopic trocars. Obstet Gynecol 100(3):614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lombezzi R, Galleano R, Lucarini L, Falchero F (2002) New technique for optical control of the first trocar insertion. Minerva Chirurgica 57(4):527–529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sharp HT, Dodson MK, Draper ML, Watts DA, Doucette RC, Hurd WW (2002) Complications associated with optical-access laparoscopic trocars. Obstet Gynecol 99(4):553–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    String A, Berber E, Foroutani A, Macho JR, Pearl JM, Siperstein AE (2001) Use of the optical access trocar for safe and rapid entry in various laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 15(6):570–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Marcovich R, Del Terzo MA, Wolf JS Jr. (2000) Comparison of transperitoneal laparoscopic access techniques: optiview visualizing trocar and Veress needle. J Endourol 14(2):175–179PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hallfeldt KK, Trupka A, Kalteis T, Stuetzle H (1999) Safe creation of pneumoperitoneum using an optical trocar. Surg Endosc 13(3):306–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mettler L, Schmidt EH, Frank V, Semm K (1999) Optical trocar systems: laparoscopic entry and its complications (a study of cases in Germany). Gynaecol Endosc 8(6):383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kaali SG, Merkatz IR (1998) Clinical experience with an optical access trocar in gynecological laparoscopy-pelviscopy. JSLS 2(3):315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kaali SG (1993) Introduction of the Opti-trocar. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1(1):50–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rubenstein JN, Blunt LW Jr., Lin WW, User HM, Nadler RB, Gonzalez CM (2003) Safety and efficacy of 12-mm radial dilating ports for laparoscopic access. BJU Int 92(3):327–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bhoyrul S, Payne J, Steffes B, Swanstrom L, Way LW (2000) A randomized prospective study of radially expanding trocars in laparoscopic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 4(4):392–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Galen DI, Jacobson A, Weckstein LN, Kaplan RA, DeNevi KL (1999) Reduction of cannula-related laparoscopic complications using a radially expanding access device. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 6(1):79–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ternamian AM (1997) Laparoscopy without trocars. Surg Endosc 11(8):815–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ternamian AM, Deitel M (1999) Endoscopic threaded imaging port (EndoTIP) for laparoscopy: experience with different body weights. Obes Surg 9(1):44–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Yim SF, Yuen PM (2001) Randomized double-masked comparison of radially expanding access device and conventional cutting tip trocar in laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 97(3):435–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Molloy D, Kaloo PD, Cooper M, Nguyen TV (2002) Laparoscopic entry: a literature review and analysis of techniques and complications of primary port entry. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 42(3):246–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Vilos GA, Ternamian A, Dempster J, Laberge PY (2007) Laparoscopic entry: a review of techniques, technologies, and complications. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada Clinical Practice Guideline. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 29(5):433–447PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Larobina M, Nottle P (2005) Complete evidence regarding major vascular injuries during laparoscopic access. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 15(3):119–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Moberg AC, Montgomery A (2005) Primary access-related complications with laparoscopy: comparison of blind and open techniques. Surg Endosc 19(9):1196–1199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Merlin TL, Hiller JE, Maddern GJ, Jamieson GG, Brown AR, Kolbe A (2001) A systematic review of the methods used to establish laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum. ASERNIP-S Report No. 13. Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S. http://www.surgeons.org/asernip-s. 2001
  82. 82.
    Pasic RP, Kantardzic M, Templeman C, Levine RL (2006) Insufflation techniques in gynecologic laparoscopy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 16(1):18–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Hender K (2001) What is the safety of open (Hasson) technique versus closed (blind Veress needle) technique for laparoscopy? Centre for Clinical Effectiveness – Evidence Report. Centre for Clinical Effectiveness (CCE), Clayton, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Woolcot R (2001) The efficacy and safety of different techniques for trocar insertion in laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 10(1):11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Bemelman WA, Dunker MS, Busch OR, Den Boer KT, de Wit LT, 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 A 10(6):325–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    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(5):599–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    McKernan JB, Champion JK (1995) Access techniques: veress needle–initial blind trocar insertion versus open laparoscopy with the Hasson trocar. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 3(1):35–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Mayol J, Garcia-Aguilar J, Ortiz-Oshiro E, 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(5):529–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Cravello L, Banet J, Agostini A, Bretelle F, Roger V, Blanc B (2002) Open laparoscopy: analysis of complications due to first trocar insertion. French. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 30(4):286–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ahmad G, Duffy JMN, Watson AJS (2007) Laparoscopic entry techniques and complications. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 99(1):52–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Chin K, Newton J (1996) Survey of training in minimal access surgery in the West Midlands region of the UK. Gynacol Endosc 5(6):329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Lalchandani S, Philips K (2005) Laparoscopic entry technique-a survey of practices of consultant gynaecologists. Gynecol Surg 2(4):245–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Lingam K, Cole RA (2001) Laparoscopic entry port visited: a survey of practices of consultant gynaecologists in Scotland. Gynaecol Endosc 10(5):335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Kaloo P, Cooper M, Molloy D (2002) A survey of entry techniques and complications of members of the Australian Gynaecological Endoscopy Society. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 42(3):264–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Marret H, Golfier F, Cassignol A, Raudrant D (2001) Methods for laparoscopy: open laparoscopy or closed laparoscopy? Attitude of the French Central University Hospital. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 29(10):673–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Garry R (1999) A consensus document concerning laparoscopic entry techniques: Middlesbrough, March 19–20 1999. Gynacol Endosc (8):403–406Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Sutton CJG, Philips K (2007) Preventing Gynaecological Laparoscopic Injury. Guideline No. 48Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    RANZCOG (2006) Use of the Veress needle to obtain pneumoperitoneum prior to laparoscopy. Statement C-Gyn 7. Consensus statement of the Royal Australian & New Zealand College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RANZCOG), the Australian Gynaecological Endoscopy Society (AGES). Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Neudecker J, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E et al (2002) (EAES) The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery clinical practice guideline on the pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 16(7):1121–1143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    SAGES. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). SAGES guidelines for diagnostic laparoscopy. Los Angeles (CA): Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES); 2002 Mar. 5 p. [13 references] www.sages.org. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES); March 2002Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Pierre F, Chapron C, Deshayes M, Madelenat P, Magnin G, Querleu D (2000) Initial access for laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. French Society of Endoscopic Gynecology, International Society of Pelvic Surgery and the National College of French Gynecologists-Obstetricians. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 29(1):8–12Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Bakkum EA, Timmermans A, Admiraal JF, Brolmann HAM, Jansen FW (2006) Laparoscopic entry techniques: a protocol for daily gynaecological practice in The Netherlands. Gynecol Surg 3(2):84–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Garry R (2006) Laparoscopic surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 20(1):89–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Vilos GA (2006) The ABCs of a safer laparoscopic entry. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13(3):249–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Semm K, Semm I (1999) Safe insertion of trocars and the Veress needle using standard equipment and the 11 security steps. Gynaecol Endosc 8(6):339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Jones KD, Fan A, Sutton C (2002) Safe entry during laparoscopy: a prospective audit in a district general hospital. Gynaecol Endosc 11(2):85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Richardson RE, Sutton CJG (1999) Complications of first entry: a pospective laparoscopy audit. Gynacol Endosc 8(6):327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Vilos GA, Vilos AG (2003) Safe laparoscopic entry guided by Veress needle CO2 insufflation pressure. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10(3):415–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    RCOG. (2006) Development of RCOG Green-top Guidelines: Producing a Clinical Practice Guideline. Clinical Governance Advice No. 1c. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    SIGN. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network . SIGN 50: A guideline developers’ handbook. Section 6: Forming guideline recommendations. http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/50/section6.html. 2007. Ref Type: Internet Communication
  111. 111.
    Hurd WH, Bude RO, DeLancey JO, Gauvin JM, Aisen AM (1991) Abdominal wall characterization with magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. The effect of obesity on the laparoscopic approach. J Reprod Med 36(7):473–476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Hurd WW, Bude RO, DeLancey JO, Pearl ML (1992) The relationship of the umbilicus to the aortic bifurcation: implications for laparoscopic technique. Obstet Gynecol 80(1):48–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Nezhat F, Brill AI, Nezhat CH, Nezhat A, Seidman DS, Nezhat C (1998) Laparoscopic appraisal of the anatomic relationship of the umbilicus to the aortic bifurcation. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 5(2):135–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Parker J, Rahimpanah F (2001) The advantages of microlaparoscopic left upper quadrant entry in selected patients. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 41(3):314–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Pasic R, Levine RL, Wolf WM Jr. (1999) Laparoscopy in morbidly obese patients. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 6(3):307–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Pelosi MA III, Pelosi MA (1998) Alignment of the umbilical axis: an effective maneuver for laparoscopic entry in the obese patient. Obstet Gynecol 92(5):869–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Schwartz ML, Drew RL, Andersen JN (2003) Induction of pneumoperitoneum in morbidly obese patients. Obes Surg 13(4):601–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Agarwala N, Liu CY (2005) Safe entry techniques during laparoscopy: left upper quadrant entry using the ninth intercostal space–a review of 918 procedures. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(1):55–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Audebert AJ, Gomel V (2000) Role of microlaparoscopy in the diagnosis of peritoneal and visceral adhesions and in the prevention of bowel injury associated with blind trocar insertion. Fertil Steril 73(3):631–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Brill AI, Nezhat F, Nezhat CH, Nezhat C (1995) The incidence of adhesions after prior laparotomy: a laparoscopic appraisal. Obstet Gynecol 85(2):269–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Chang FH, Lee CL, Soong YK (1994) Use of Palmer’s point for insertion of the operative laparoscope in patients with severe pelvic adhesions: experience of seventeen cases. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1(4, Part 2):S7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Chang FH, Chou HH, Lee CL, Cheng PJ, Wang CW, Soong YK (1995) Extraumbilical insertion of the operative laparoscope in patients with extensive intraabdominal adhesions. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2(3):335–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Chi DS, Abu-Rustum NR, Sonoda Y et al (2004) Ten-year experience with laparoscopy on a gynecologic oncology service: analysis of risk factors for complications and conversion to laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(4):1138–1145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Childers JM, Brzechffa PR, Surwit EA (1993) Laparoscopy using the left upper quadrant as the primary trocar site. Gynecol Oncol 50(2):221–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Durand-Reville M, Guichard-Checchi C, Ejnes L et al (2003) Gynecologic laparoscopy and abdominal scars: what approach for the peritoneal cavity? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 32(7):625–633Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Gersin KS, Heniford BT, Arca MJ, Ponsky JL (1998) Alternative site entry for laparoscopy in patients with previous abdominal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 8(3):125–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Golan A, Sagiv R, Debby A, Glezerman M (2003) The minilaparoscope as a tool for localization and preparation for cannula insertion in patients with multiple previous abdominal incisions or umbilical hernia. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10(1):14–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Howard FM, El Minawi AM, DeLoach VE (1997) Direct laparoscopic cannula insertion at the left upper quadrant. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4(5):595–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Jacobson TZ, Davis C (2003) A prospective studiy of Palmer’s point entry, the rate of sub-umbilical adhesions in women undergoing laparoscopy with previous abdominal surgery. Abstract P04. Rev Gynaecol Pract 3[1]Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Kumakiri J, Takeuchi H, Sato Y et al (2006) A novel method of ninth-intercostal microlaparoscopic approach for patients with previous laparotomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85(8):977–981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Lam KW, Pun TC (2002) Left upper quadrant approach in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery using reusable instruments. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 9(2):199–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Lecuru F, Leonard F, Philippe JJ, Rizk E, Robin F, Taurelle R (2001) Laparoscopy in patients with prior surgery: results of the blind approach. JSLS 5(1):13–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Levrant SG, Bieber EJ, Barnes RB (1997) Anterior abdominal wall adhesions after laparotomy or laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4(3):353–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Parker J, Reid G, Wong F (1999) Microlaparoscopic left upper quadrant entry in patients at high risk of periumbilical adhesions. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 39(1):88–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Parker MC, Ellis H, Moran BJ et al (2001) Postoperative adhesions: ten-year follow-up of 12,584 patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 44(6):822–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Rafii A, Camatte S, Lelievre L, Darai E, Lecuru F (2005) Previous abdominal surgery and closed entry for gynecologic laparoscopy: a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol Surv 60(4):229–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Sepilian V, Ku L, Wong H, Liu CY, Phelps JY (2007) Prevalence of infraumbilical adhesions in women with previous laparoscopy. JSLS 11(1):41–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Szigetvari I, Feinman M, Barad D, Bartfai G, Kaali SG. (1989) Association of previous abdominal surgery and significant adhesions in laparoscopic sterilization patients. J Reprod Med 34(7):465–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Kolecki RV, Golub RM, Sigel B et al (1994) Accuracy of viscera slide detection of abdominal wall adhesions by ultrasound. Surg Endosc 8(8):871–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Tu FF, Lamvu GM, Hartmann KE, Steege JF (2005) Preoperative ultrasound to predict infraumbilical adhesions: a study of diagnostic accuracy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(1):74–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Hsu WC, Chang WC, Huang SC, Torng PL, Chang DY, Sheu BC (2006) Visceral sliding technique is useful for detecting abdominal adhesion and preventing laparoscopic surgical complications. Gynecol Obstet Invest 62(2):75–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Kothari SN, Fundell LJ, Lambert PJ, Mathiason MA (2006) Use of transabdominal ultrasound to identify intraabdominal adhesions prior to laparoscopy: a prospective blinded study. Am J Surg 192(6):843–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Nezhat CH, Adib T (2007) A Diagnostic Study to Predict Subumbilical Adhesions using Preoperative Ultrasound for Visceral Slide and a Novel Peri-umbilical Ultrasound-guided Saline Infusion (PUGSI) Technique. Abstract 212. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(6, Supplement 1):S78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Larciprete G, Cirese E, Flora R, Fanning J (2007) 171: Safe peritoneal access for laparoscopy in women with previous abdominal open surgery. Ultrasound preoperative evaluation of the subumbilical field. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(6, Supplement 1):S63–S64Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Sriprasad S, Yu DF, Muir GH, Poulsen J, Sidhu PS (2006) Positional anatomy of vessels that may be damaged at laparoscopy: new access criteria based on CT and ultrasonography to avoid vascular injury. J Endourol 20(7):498–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Narendran M, Baggish MS (2002) Mean Distance Between Primary Trocar Insertion Site and Major Retroperitoneal Vessels During Routine Laparoscopy. J Gynecol Surg 18(4):121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Roy GM, Bazzurini L, Solima E, Luciano AA (2001) Safe technique for laparoscopic entry into the abdominal cavity. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 8(4):519–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Angelini L, Lirici MM, Papaspyropoulos V, Sossi FL (1997) Combination of subcutaneous abdominal wall retraction and optical trocar to minimize pneumoperitoneum-related effects and needle and trocar injuries in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 11(10):1006–1009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Briel JW, Plaisier PW, Meijer WS, Lange JF (2000) Is it necessary to lift the abdominal wall when preparing a pneumoperitoneum? A randomized study. Surg Endosc 14(9):862–864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Teoh B, Sen R, Abbott J (2005) An evaluation of four tests used to ascertain Veres needle placement at closed laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(2):153–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Vilos AG, Vilos GA, Abu-Rafea B, Hollett-Caines J, Al Omran M (2006) Effect of body habitus and parity on the initial Veres intraperitoneal CO2 insufflation pressure during laparoscopic access in women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13(2):108–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Azevedo OC, Azevedo JL, Sorbello AA, Miguel GP, Wilson Junior JL, Godoy AC (2006) Evaluation of tests performed to confirm the position of the Veress needle for creation of pneumoperitoneum in selected patients: a prospective clinical trial. Acta Cir Bras 21(6):385–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Reich H, Ribeiro SC, Rasmussen C, Rosenberg J, Vidali A (1999) High-pressure trocar insertion technique. JSLS 3(1):45–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Reich H, Rasmussen C, Vidali A (1999) Peritoneal hyperdistention for trocar insertion. Gynacological Endoscopy 8(6):375–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Tsaltas J, Pearce S, Lawrence A, Meads A, Mezzatesta J, Nicolson S (2004) Safer laparoscopic trocar entry: It’s all about pressure. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 44(4):349–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Abu-Rafea B, Vilos GA, Vilos AG, Ahmad R, Hollett-Caines J, Al Omran M (2005) High-pressure laparoscopic entry does not adversely affect cardiopulmonary function in healthy women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(6):475–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Abu-Rafea B, Vilos GA, Vilos AG, Hollett-Caines J, Al Omran M (2006) Effect of body habitus and parity on insufflated CO2 volume at various intraabdominal pressures during laparoscopic access in women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13(3):205–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Epstein J, Arora A, Ellis H (2004) Surface anatomy of the inferior epigastric artery in relation to laparoscopic injury. Clin Anat 17(5):400–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Saber AA, Meslemani AM, Davis R, Pimentel R (2004) Safety zones for anterior abdominal wall entry during laparoscopy: a CT scan mapping of epigastric vessels. Ann Surg 239(2):182–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Nezhat CH, Nezhat F, Brill AI, Nezhat C (1999) Normal variations of abdominal and pelvic anatomy evaluated at laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 94(2):238–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Hurd WW, Bude RO, DeLancey JO, Newman JS (1994) The location of abdominal wall blood vessels in relationship to abdominal landmarks apparent at laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 171(3):642–646PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Hurd WW, Amesse LS, Gruber JS, Horowitz GM, Cha GM, Hurteau JA (2003) Visualization of the epigastric vessels and bladder before laparoscopic trocar placement. Fertil Steril 80(1):209–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Wind J, Cremers JE, Berge Henegouwen MI, Gouma DJ, Jansen FW, Bemelman WA (2007) Medical liability insurance claims on entry-related complications in laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 5Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Vilos GA (2002) Laparoscopic bowel injuries: forty litigated gynaecological cases in Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada: JOGC 24(3):224–230Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Vilos GA (2000) Litigation of laparoscopic major vessel injuries in Canada. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7(4):503–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Soderstrom RM (1993) Bowel injury litigation after laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1(1):74–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Sutton CJ (1996) Medico-legal implications of keyhole surgery. Medico-Legal J 64(Pt 3):101–113Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Rein H (2001) Complications and litigation in gynecologic endoscopy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 13(4):425–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Ellis H (2001) Medicolegal consequences of postoperative intra-abdominal adhesions. J R Soc Med 94(7):331–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Jansen FW, Wind J, Cremeres JEL, Bemelman WA (2007) 146: Entry Related Complications in Laparoscopy and Their Medical Liability Insurance. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(6, Supplement 1):S54–S55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Driscoll V (2004) Bowel injury during laparoscopic sterilization – Vanessa Palmer v Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust. The AvMA Med Legal J 10(3):109–111Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Hart R, Doherty DA, Karthigasu K, Garry R (2006) The value of virtual reality-simulator training in the development of laparoscopic surgical skills. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13(2):126–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Kolkman W, Wolterbeek R, Jansen FW (2005) Gynecological laparoscopy in residency training program: Dutch perspectives. Surg Endosc 19(11):1498–1502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Women’s HealthGuy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, St. Thomas’ HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyBirmingham Women’s HospitalBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations