Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective, randomized comparison of the use of FloShield Air System® versus the reference technique (water + povidone-iodine solution) during gynecologic endoscopic surgery to evaluate the operative lens vision quality

  • New Technology
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The FloShield Air System® is a new device for laparoscopic surgery that utilizes a continuous dry CO2 gas flow over the scope to defog the lens and protect it from condensation, debris and smoke. We set out to compare the performance and efficiency of the device in terms of operative lens vision quality (OLVQ) with the reference technique (water + povidone-iodine (PVI) solution) during gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

Materials and methods

We conducted a single-center randomized prospective study between March and June 2016 (Trials Database Registration NCT02702531) including 53 patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery with water + PVI solution and 51 patients who underwent surgical procedures with the FloShield Air System.

The primary outcome measure was the number of laparoscope removals during surgery. Secondary outcome measures were the time to clean, assessment of the quality of vision, the correlation between the laparoscopic surgical complexity and outcomes, and cost effectiveness.

Results

Overall, the mean patient age was 43.2 years (range 22–86) and body mass index 24.8 (range 16.8–42.7). The mean number of endoscope removals during surgery was 7.0 (range 0–37) in the water + PVI solution arm and 2.8 (range 0–12) in the FloShield Air System® arm. The number of removals was significantly lower in the FloShield arm (p < 0.001). No difference in time to clean, quality of vision, level of laparoscopic procedure complexity, or cost was observed between the groups.

Conslusions

The FloShield Air System® resulted in fewer laparoscopic lens removals than the water + PVI solution solution, but that there was no difference in quality of vision, cleaning time or cost, especially for the more complex surgery.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chung RS, Rowland DY, Li P, Diaz J (1999) A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy. Am J Surg 177(3):250–256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Karthikesalingam A, Markar SR, Holt PJE, Praseedom RK (2010) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open mesh repair of recurrent inguinal hernia. Br J Surg 97(1):4–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Canis M, Mage G, Wattiez A et al (1994) The role of laparoscopic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 6(3):210–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kehoe SM, Ramirez PT, Abu-Rustum NR (2007) Innovative laparoscopic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Curr Oncol Rep 9(6):472–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen S-H, Li Z-A, Du X-P (2016) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis: a meta-analysis. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 43(3):422–426

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Donnez J, Dolmans M-M (2016) Uterine fibroid management: from the present to the future. Hum Reprod Update. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmw023

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moawad NS, Santamaria E, Rhoton-Vlasak A, Lightsey JL (2016) Laparoscopic ovarian transposition before pelvic cancer treatment: ovarian function and fertility preservation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2016.08.831

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lawrentschuk N, Fleshner NE, Bolton DM (2010) Laparoscopic lens fogging: a review of etiology and methods to maintain a clear visual field. J Endourol Endourol Soc 24(6):905–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sunny S, Cheng G, Daniel D et al (2016) Transparent antifouling material for improved operative field visibility in endoscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. doi:10.1073/pnas.1605272113

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Yong N, Grange P, Eldred-Evans D (2016) Impact of laparoscopic lens contamination in operating theaters: a study on the frequency and duration of lens contamination and commonly utilized techniques to maintain clear vision. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26(4):286–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mowbray N, Ansell J, Warren N et al (2013) Is surgical smoke harmful to theater staff? A systematic review. Surg Endosc 27(9):3100–3107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mohammadhosseini B (2010) Povidone-iodine surgical scrub solution prevents fogging of the scope’s lens during laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 24(6):1498–1499; author reply 1500

  13. Balayssac D, Pereira B, Bazin J-E et al (2016) Warmed and humidified carbon dioxide for abdominal laparoscopic surgery: meta-analysis of the current literature. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-016-4866-1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Binda MM (2015) Humidification during laparoscopic surgery: overview of the clinical benefits of using humidified gas during laparoscopic surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292(5):955–971

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Deurzen DFP, Mannaerts GHH, Jakimowicz JJ, Cuschieri A (2005) Prevention of lens condensation in laparoscopic surgery by lens heating with a thermos flask. Surg Endosc 19(2):299–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Piromchai P, Kasemsiri P, Thanaviratananich S (2011) Alternative agents to prevent fogging in head and neck endoscopy. Clin Med Insights Ear Nose Throat 4:1–4

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. ITU-T (2000) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Available at: http://www.videoclarity.com/PDF/T-REC-P.910-199909-I!!PDF-E[1].pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2013

  18. Iyer R, Gentry-Maharaj A, Nordin A et al (2015) Predictors of complications in gynaecological oncological surgery: a prospective multicentre study (UKGOSOC-UK gynaecological oncology surgical outcomes and complications). Br J Cancer 112(3):475–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dexter F, Traub RD (2002) How to schedule elective surgical cases into specific operating rooms to maximize the efficiency of use of operating room time. Anesth Analg 94(4):933–942, table of contents

  20. http://www.atih.sante.fr/information-sur-les-couts/enc-presentation

  21. http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/GUIDECAH…BOS2011-3.pdf

  22. World Health Organization (2002) Female sterilization: a guide to provision of services. WHO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kitano S, Tomikawa M, Iso Y et al (1992) A safe and simple method to maintain a clear field of vision during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 6(4):197–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie (IUC), University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris 6, France

    S. Bendifallah, E. Salakos, I. Naoura, P. Aristizabal, E. Furet, S. Zilberman, M. Ballester & E. Darai

  2. INSERM UMR_S_707, “Epidemiology, Information Systems, Modeling”, University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris 6, France

    S. Bendifallah

  3. UMR_S938 Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris 6, France

    M. Ballester & E. Darai

  4. Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Hôpital Tenon, 4 rue de la Chine, 75020, Paris, France

    S. Bendifallah

Authors
  1. S. Bendifallah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Salakos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Naoura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Aristizabal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Furet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Zilberman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Ballester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. E. Darai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Bendifallah.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Drs Bendifallah, Salakos, Naoura, Aristizabal, Furet, Zilberman and Prs Ballester, and Darai have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 241 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bendifallah, S., Salakos, E., Naoura, I. et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of the use of FloShield Air System® versus the reference technique (water + povidone-iodine solution) during gynecologic endoscopic surgery to evaluate the operative lens vision quality. Surg Endosc 32, 1593–1599 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5642-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5642-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation