A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

New 5-mm laparoscopic pneumodissector device to improve laparoscopic dissection: an experimental study of its safety in a swine model. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to evaluate the safety of a 5-mm laparoscopic pneumodissector (PD) that uses high-pressure CO to enhance surgical dissection while minimizing the risk of gas embolism (GE) in a swine model.
  • Testing involved placing the PD in the liver and inferior vena cava with varying flow rates (5, 10, and 15 mL/s) to determine safe settings and compare the PD's effectiveness to a standard laparoscopic hook device.
  • Results showed no instances of GE with the PD at safe flow rates, and it improved dissection quality without extending operative time or increasing blood loss compared to the control group.

Article Abstract

Background: To improve the laparoscopic surgical dissection, the aim of the study was to assess the safety of burst of high-pressure CO using a 5-mm laparoscopic pneumodissector (PD) operating at different flow rates and for different operating times regarding the risk of gas embolism (GE) in a swine model.

Methods: The first step was to define the settings use of the PD device ensuring no GE. Successive procedures were conducted by laparotomy: cholecystectomy, the PD was placed 10 mm deep in the liver and the PD was directly introduced into the lumen of the inferior vena cava. Different PD flow rates of 5, 10, and 15 mL/s were used. The second step was to assess the safety of the device (PD group) during a laparoscopic dissection task (cystic and hepatic pedicles dissection, cholecystectomy and right nephrectomy) in comparison with the use of a standard laparoscopic hook device (control group). PD flow rate was 10 mL/s and consecutive burst of high-pressure CO was delivered for 3-5 s.

Results: In the first step (n = 17 swine), no GE occurred during cholecystectomy regardless of the PD flow rate used. When the PD was placed in the liver or into the inferior vena cava, no severe or fatal GE occurred when a burst of high-pressure CO was applied for 3 or 5 s with PD flow rates of 5 and 10 mL/s. In the second step (PD group, n = 10; control group, n = 10), no GE occurred in the PD group. The use of the PD did not increase operative time or blood loss. The quality of the dissection was significantly improved compared to the control group.

Conclusions: The 5-mm laparoscopic PD appears to be free from CO GE risk when consecutive bursts of high-pressure CO are delivered for 3-5 s with a flow rate of 10 mL/s.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08953-6DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

5-mm laparoscopic
12
burst high-pressure
12
flow rates
12
flow rate
12
laparoscopic pneumodissector
8
improve laparoscopic
8
laparoscopic dissection
8
assess safety
8
inferior vena
8
vena cava
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!