Page 15 - World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery
P. 15

WJOLS
                                                                                                        WJOLS


                                                                                10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1238
                             Prospective Randomized Trial of Low Pressure Pneumo peritoneum for Reduction of Shoulder Tip Pain
          OriginaL articLe

          Prospective Randomized Trial of Low Pressure Pneumo­

          peritoneum for Reduction of Shoulder Tip Pain following
          Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Comparative Study


                         2
          1 Muzzafar Zaman,  Kunal Chowdhary,  Pradeep Goyal
                                          3
          ABSTRACT                                            This study also shows that low pressure technique is safe with
                                                              comparable rate of intraoperative complications.
          Background:  Abdominal  pain  and  shoulder  tip  pain  after
          laparoscopic cholecystectomy are distressing for the patient.   Keywords:  laparoscopic cholecystectomy,  low pressure
          Various causes of this pain are peritoneal stretching and    pneumoperitoneum, Shoulder tip pain.
          diaphragmatic  irritation  by  high  intra-abdominal  pressure   How to cite this article: Zaman M, Chowdhary K, Goyal p.
          caused by pneumoperitoneum. We designed a study to com-  prospective Randomized Trial of  low  pressure  pneumo-
          pare the postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy   peritoneum for Reduction of Shoulder Tip pain following lapa-
          at low pressure (7-8 mm Hg) and standard pressure technique   roscopic Cholecystectomy: A Comparative Study. World J lap
          (12-14 mm Hg).                                      Surg 2015;8(1):13-15.
          Aim: To compare the effect of low pressure and standard   Source of support: Nil
          pre ssure pneumoperitoneum in post-laparoscopic cholecys-  Conflict of interest: None
          tectomy pain. Further to study, the  safety of low  pressure
          pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
                                                              inTRoduCTion
          Settings and design: A prospective randomized double
          blind study.                                        Carbon dioxide is the commonest means of achieving
          Materials and methods: A prospective randomized double   pneumoperitoneum in modern minimal access surgery
          blind study was done in 50 ASA grade I and II patients. They  worldwide and it is the same gas responsible for postope­
          were divided into two groups—25 each. Group A, patients   rative shoulder tip pain. The reported incidence of shoul­
          underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with low pressure
          pneumoperitoneum (7-8 mm Hg) while group B, underwent   der tip pain following laparoscopic cholecystectomy is
                                                                      1,2
          laparoscopic cholecystectomy with standard pressure pneu-  30 to 50%.  Carbon dioxide is used for insufflations as it
          moperitoneum (12-14 mm Hg). Both the groups were compared  is 200 times more diffusible than oxygen, rapidly cleared
          for pain intensity, analgesic requirement and complications.   by the lungs and does not support the combustion.
          Shoulder tip pain was recorded on a visual analog pain scale
          1, 6, 12, 24 and 48 hours after operation.          Carbon dioxide when comes in contact with peritoneal fluid
                                                              converts into carbonic acid which irritates diaphragm
          Statistical analysis: Demographic data and intraoperative
          complications were analyzed using Chi-square test. Frequency   causing shoulder tip pain and discomfort in abdomen.
          of pain, intensity of pain, analgesics consumption and other
          pneumoperitoneum related complications were compared by   AiMS And oBJECTiVES
          applying ANOVA test.
                                                              The aim of this study is to see whether low pressure
          Results: Postoperative pain score was significantly less in low   (10 mm Hg) laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be consi­
          pressure group as compared to standard pressure group. Num-
          ber of patients requiring rescue analgesic doses was more in   dered as the standard technique for uncomplicated
          standard pressure group. This was statistically significant. Also  symptomatic gall stone disease.
          total analgesic consumption was more in standard pressure
          group. There was no difference in intraoperative complications.  MATERiALS And METHodS
          Conclusion: This study demonstrates the use of simple expe-  The study was carried out in the department of general
          dient of reducing the pressure of pneumoperitoneum to 8 mm   surgery, MMU Medical College and Hospital, solan,
          results in reduction in both intensity and frequency of post-
          operative pain, and hence early recovery and better outcome.  from July 2014 to March 2015.
                                                              inclusion Criteria

            1,3 Assistant professor,  Senior Resident         •  Age 18 to 60 years
                             2
            1-3 Department of General Surgery, MMU Medical College and   •  Cholelithiasis (uncomplicated).
            Hospital, Solan, Himachal pradesh, India
                                                              Exclusion Criteria
            Corresponding Author:  Muzzafar  Zaman, Assistant
            professor, Department of General Surgery, MMU Medical   •  Acute cholecystitis
            College and Hospital, Kumarhatti, Solan-173229, Himachal   •  Age < 18 and > 60
            pradesh, India, e-mail: muzzafarzaman@yahoo.com
                                                              •  Pregnancy.
          World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery, January-April 2015;8(1):13-15                              13
   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20