Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Surg J (N Y) 2022; 08(03): e239-e244
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756182
Original Article

Comparison of Two Entry Methods and Their Cosmetic Outcomes in Creating Pneumoperitoneum: A Prospective Observational Study

Srikantaiah Chandra Sekhariah Hiremath
1   Department of General Surgery, M. S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
,
Zameer Ahmed
1   Department of General Surgery, M. S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
› Author Affiliations Funding Nil.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The main challenge in laparoscopic surgery is creating pneumoperitoneum using various surgical techniques. Every procedure has its own advocates. The aim of this study was to determine the cosmetic outcomes of the two of the major surgical techniques (open—Hasson technique versus closed—Veress technique) used in laparoscopic surgery.

Methods This was a prospective, observational, comparative study conducted from October 2017 to September 2018 in 132 patients, who presented to our center and fulfilled our selection criteria. For all the patients, pneumoperitoneum was performed using either open (Hasson) or closed technique (Veress). A database was created for all the patients and the technique dependent cosmetic outcomes were assessed and reported.

Results There were a total of 66 patients in each group (open and closed). The mean age of the open group was 51.56±11.42 years and closed group was 54.36±14.78 years, respectively. The major comorbidities found in both the groups were diabetes mellitus (6/66, group A; 7/66, group B) and hypertension (3/66, group A; 4/66, group B). In open group, umbilical (58/66, p=0.001) and in closed group infraumbilical (35/66, p=0.001) were the most commonly used incisions.

Conclusion As benefits outweigh the risks, the better cosmetic outcomes were observed in patients underwent closed technique over open technique (p<0.05).

Keywords

prospective study - pneumoperitoneum - laparoscopic surgery - Veress technique - Hasson technique - cosmetic outcomes

Ethics Committee Approval

Ethics Committee approval (SS-1/EC/26/2016) was received for this study from the Ethics Committee of M. S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospitals, India.


Informed Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient.


Financial Disclosure

The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.




Publication History

Received: 25 January 2022

Accepted: 18 July 2022

Article published online:
02 September 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kelley Jr WE. The evolution of laparoscopy and the revolution in surgery in the decade of the 1990s. JSLS 2008; 12 (04) 351-357
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hatzinger M, Kwon ST, Langbein S, Kamp S, Häcker A, Alken P. Hans Christian Jacobaeus: Inventor of Human Laparoscopy and Thoracoscopy. https://home.liebertpub.com/end 2006; 20 (11) 848-850 DOI: 10.1089/END.2006.20.848.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Toro A, Mannino M, Cappello G, Di Stefano A, Di Carlo I. Comparison of two entry methods for laparoscopic port entry: technical point of view. Diagn Ther Endosc 2012; 2012: 305428 DOI: 10.1155/2012/305428.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Vaishnani BV, Kachhadiya KR, Chauhan MR. A comparative study of the open versus closed method of pneumoperitoneum creation in laparoscopic surgery. Int Surg J. 2021; 8 (11) 3344-3347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Open versus closed method of establishing pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy - PubMed. Accessed August 1, 2022, at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19728940/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bianchi A, Collivignarelli F, Vignoli M. et al. A comparison of times taken for the placement of the first portal and complication rates between the Veress needle technique and the modified Hasson technique in canine ovariectomy laparoscopic surgery. Animal 2021; 11 (10) 2936
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Elmeligy HA, Esmat ME, Elashry MA, Gomaa AM, Helmy AH. Open access for pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (transumbilical vs. conventional). Egypt J Surg 2020; 39 (03) 682 DOI: 10.4103/EJS.EJS_45_20.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 An External Audit of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in the Ste...: Annals of Surgery. Accessed August 1, 2022, at: https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/1996/08000/An_External_Audit_of_Laparoscopic_Cholecystectomy.6.aspx
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Chotai NR, Choksi BB, Damor S, Bhedi A. Intraperitoneal access by closed method (veress needle) versus open (Hasson's) method in laparoscopic surgery to create pneumoperitoneum. Int Surg J. 2017; 4 (08) 2786-2790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Deguara C, Davis C. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2011; 23 (04) 268-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dunne N, Booth MI, Dehn TCB. Establishing pneumoperitoneum: Verres or Hasson? The debate continues. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2011; 93 (01) 22-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Vilos GA, Ternamian A, Dempster J, Laberge PY. CLINICAL PRACTICE GYNAECOLOGY COMMITTEE. Laparoscopic entry: a review of techniques, technologies, and complications. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007; 29 (05) 433-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Krishnakumar S, Tambe P. Entry complications in laparoscopic surgery. J Gynecol Endosc Surg 2009; 1 (01) 4-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Alhajress GI, Al Babtain I, Alsaghyir A, Arishi H. Complications of Veress needle versus open technique in abdominal surgeries. Cureus 2021; 13 (05) e14926 DOI: 10.7759/CUREUS.14926.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, Levinson H. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty 2010; 10: e43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Carrière ME, van de Kar AL, van Zuijlen PPM. Scar Assessment Scales. In: Téot L, Mustoe TA, Middelkoop E, Gauglitz GG. (eds) Textbook on Scar Management. Springer: Cham; 2020: 125-132 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-44766-3_14
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Thompson CM, Sood RF, Honari S, Carrougher GJ, Gibran NS. What score on the Vancouver Scar Scale constitutes a hypertrophic scar? Results from a survey of North American burn-care providers. Burns 2015; 41 (07) 1442-1448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Powell-Brett S, Richardson M, Super P, Singhal R. Veress needle creation of pneumoperitoneum: a safe technique. Obes Surg 2020; 30 (05) 2026-2027
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Open versus closed establishment of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery - PubMed. Accessed August 1, 2022, at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9171741/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Şahan A, Ozkaptan O, Cubuk A, Şimşek B, Tanidir Y, Akça O. Fast, easy, and safe establishment of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery: the fingertip technique. JSLS 2021; 25 (01) e2020.00069 DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2020.00069.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 George R, Mathew M, Radhakrishna V, Rahman A, Thenamangalath A. Modified Hasson technique versus Veress technique: a comparative study. Int Surg J. 2019; 6 (09) 3246-3250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Nedelec B, Shankowsky HA, Tredget EE. Rating the resolving hypertrophic scar: comparison of the Vancouver Scar Scale and scar volume. J Burn Care Rehabil 2000; 21 (03) 205-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lee KH, Kim EY, Park CH, Park YL, Yun JS, Lee GY. Assessing cosmetic results after conventional thyroidectomy using the EASY-EYE_C: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg Treat Res 2017; 93 (05) 231-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Şentürk MB, Doğan O, Polat M, Kılıçcı Ç, Pulatoğlu Ç, Tayyar AT. Cosmetic outcomes of infraumbilical, supraumbilical, and transumbilical entry routes in laparoscopic surgery. Turk J Surg 2018; 34 (04) 290-294
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wang L, Cai C, Liu B. et al. Perioperative outcomes and cosmesis analysis of patients undergoing laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy: a comparison of transumbilical, transperitoneal subcostal, and retroperitoneal subcostal approaches. Urology 2013; 82 (02) 358-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kim E, Kim D, Lee S, Lee H. Minimal-scar laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Obes Surg 2009; 19 (04) 500-503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mowat J, Bonnar J. J M. Abdominal wound dehiscence after caesarean section. BMJ 1971; 2 (5756): 256-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sasmal PK, Tantia O, Jain M, Khanna S, Sen B. Primary access-related complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy via the closed technique: experience of a single surgical team over more than 15 years. Surg Endosc 2009; 23 (11) 2407-2415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Antevil JL, Bhoyrul S, Brunson ME, Vierra MA, Swadia ND. Safe and rapid laparoscopic access–a new approach. World J Surg 2005; 29 (06) 800-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Routine use of open technique in laparoscopic operations - PubMed. Accessed August 1, 2022, at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8989301/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Buscà R, Ballotti R. Cyclic AMP a key messenger in the regulation of skin pigmentation. Pigment Cell Res 2000; 13 (02) 60-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Chadwick S, Heath R, Shah M. Abnormal pigmentation within cutaneous scars: a complication of wound healing. Indian J Plast Surg 2012; 45 (02) 403-411
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lassalle MW, Igarashi S, Sasaki M, Wakamatsu K, Ito S, Horikoshi T. Effects of melanogenesis-inducing nitric oxide and histamine on the production of eumelanin and pheomelanin in cultured human melanocytes. Pigment Cell Res 2003; 16 (01) 81-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar