Page 29 - World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Comparative Study of Veress Needle and Visiport in Creating Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery
In Berch et al.’s 4-year study in optical trocar, there were no conclusIon
trocar-related bowel or vascular injuries with Visiport.
In this study of comparison, both techniques were seemed to have

deMogrAphIc dAtA of pAtIents And been associated with their own complications. But Visiport is a safe

and faster method of creating pneumoperitoneum, though there
results was statistically insignificant major vascular injury. It happened
with an inexperienced surgeon. There is no strong evidence of
Veress needle Visiport superiority of one technique over the other.
Even though both techniques are associated with potential
Demographic data VN group Optical trocar p value danger of perforating injuries on inserting the first trocar, the
Number of cases 150 150 undervision technique allows early recognition of injuries and
Mean age (years) 33.1 ± 10.4 35.4 ± 10.6 0.09 immediate repair. No single technique and instrument has been
Male/female 96/54 59/91 0.001 accepted as the “gold standard” for creating pneumoperitoneum
Time for creating 3.1 ± 0.7 2.1 ± 0.4 0.001 in laparoscopic surgery. 9,10
pneumoperitoneum Good surgical skills and proper evaluation of the patient are
(minutes) important for safe access in minimal access surgery. The surgeon
11
Duration of surgery 56.7 ± 17.2 60 ± 25.6 0.204 should be competent in both the techniques. Regardless of the
(minutes) technique that has been chosen, one must abide by the safe general
Duration of hospital 83.5 ± 36.1 62.8 ± 34.3 0.001 principles of surgery, be meticulous, take your own time, and be
stay (hours) highly alert for appearance of signs of injury.
Aortic injury 0 1 0.365 With further research and development, an optimal form of
IVC injury 0 1 0.365 the laparoscopic entry technique for creating and maintaining
Visceral injury pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery needs to be designed.
Omental injury 3 0 0.109 The surgeons should be familiar with both the techniques and
Omental tear 0 1 adapt their entry technique to individual patient’s circumstances.
Preperitoneal 5 0 0.024
insufflation references
Failure of technique 1 0 0.317
1. Mishra RK. Textbook of practical laparoscopic surgery. 2009. pp.
Port-site hematoma 1 4 0.176 67–94.
Gas embolism 0 0 2. Opilka MN, Lorenc Z, Starzewski J. Laparoscopic access techniques.
J Silesian Med Univ. Poland, ch. 6.
coMplIcAtIons 3. Akbar M, Khan IA, Naveed D, et al. Comparison of closed and open
methods of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
J Ayub Med Coll 2008;20(2):85–89.
Veress needle Visiport 4. Kumar R, Hastir A, Bandlish MK, et al. Pneumoperitoneum by direct
Complications (150) (%) (150) (%) Total (%) trocar insertion: safe laparoscopic access. J Evol Med Dent Sci
Vascular injuries 0.0 0.3 0.3 2015;4(15):2432–2437. DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2015/352.
5. Toro A, Mannino M, Cappello G, et al. Comparison of two entry
Visceral injuries 2 0.7 1.3 methods for laparoscopic port entry: technical point of view. Diagn
Preperitoneal insufflation 3.3 0.0 1.7 Ther Endosc 2012;2012:305428. DOI: 10.1155/2012/305428.
Failure of technique 0.7 0.0 0.3 6. Vilos GA, Teernamian A, Dempster J, et al. Laparoscopic entry: a review
Port-site hematoma 0.7 2.7 1.7 of techniques, technologies and complications. J Obstet Gynaecol
Can 2007;29(5):433–465. DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35496-2.
Hospital Stay 7. Dunne N, Booth MI, Dehn TCB, et al. Establishing pneumoperitoneum:
Veress or Hasson? The debate continues. Ann R Coll Surg Engl
Average duration of hospital stay among the Veress needle group 2011;93(1):22–24. DOI: 10.1308/003588411X12851639107557.
was 83.3 ± 36.1 hours and that of the Visiport group was 62.8 ± 8. Lapham T, Tarnoff M, Kim J, et al. Five-year experience with a bladed
34.3 hours. The observed difference was statistically significant optical trocar in an uninsufflated abdomen in bariatric surgery.
(p < 0.05). Duration of hospital stay among the Veress needle group J Tufts-N Engl Med Cent 2007.
was significantly greater than the Visiport group. This difference is 9. Berch BR, Torquati A, Lutfi RE, et al. Experience with the optical access
due to the difference in cases; most of the cases under the Veress trocar for safe and rapid entry in the performance of laparoscopic
group were infective cases like appendicitis with perforation, gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 2006;20(8):1238–1241. DOI: 10.1007/
s00464-005-0188-4.
collection, abscess formation, and acute cholecystitis, blunt 10. Access to the Abdomen, Manual of Strategic Decision Making, SAGES
abdominal trauma cases for diagnostic laparoscopy, and all these Manual page 1–3.
needed more hospital stay. However, those under Visiport were 11. Hashizume M, Sugimachi K. Needle and trocar injury during
bariatric surgery and hernia cases; these were all clean cases and laparoscopic surgery in Japan. Surg Endosc 1997;11(12):1198–1201.
needed less duration stay in the hospital. DOI: 10.1007/s004649900568.

World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery, Volume 12 Issue 2 (May–August 2019) 75