Comparison Between Veress Needle (Closed)Technique and Open Technique in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background: The aim of this study is to compare open cholecystectomy with needle (closed) technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of outcomes and complications. Methods : In this comparative study patients undergoing cholecystectomy were randomized to be in either of the two groups. Each...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Tariq Nawaz
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Rawalpindi Medical University 2016-06-01
Series:Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.journalrmc.com/index.php/JRMC/article/view/193
id doaj-b66b8f15da9649dbbd31834d23628534
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b66b8f15da9649dbbd31834d236285342020-11-25T03:56:48ZengRawalpindi Medical UniversityJournal of Rawalpindi Medical College1683-35621683-35702016-06-01202Comparison Between Veress Needle (Closed)Technique and Open Technique in Laparoscopic CholecystectomyTariq Nawaz0Department of Surgery, Holy Family Hospital and Rawalpindi Medical College, Rawalpindi. Background: The aim of this study is to compare open cholecystectomy with needle (closed) technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of outcomes and complications. Methods : In this comparative study patients undergoing cholecystectomy were randomized to be in either of the two groups. Each containing 70 patients. Inclusion criteria was, patients with age 20 to 50 years with symptomatic gall stones disease, and without any other general contraindication for laparoscopic surgery . All patients were diagnosed by history ultrasound abdomen. All patients having contraindications to laparoscopic procedure like respiratory compromise, malignancy or any other comorbidities were excluded from the study.Group A constituted 70 patients and all those were randomized for open technique while group B also contained the same number of patients and they were randomized for Veress needle technique. Open technique was performed through skin incision and then dissecting the fascia for gaining access to abdomen by inserting trocar while the closed technique involves direct insertion of Veress needle into abdominal cavity for pneumoperitoneum creation and then trocar placement. The parameters compared were access time , gas leak, visceral injury, vascular injury, need for conversion, umbilical port site hematoma, umbilical port site infection, umbilical port site hernia. Patients were assessed after discharge at the first post operative day, seventh day then after 2 months, 6 months, and after 1 year and last visit on 18 months for assessment of complications. Results: Out of 140 patients, 90 were females and 50 patients were males. Age ranged from 22 to 55 years with mean age of 40 years. The mean time needed to create pneumoperitoneum was 4±1 minutes in veress needle technique and 5±1 in open method (p-value = 0.000) . Gas leak was observed in 15 patients in group A where as no patient had a gas leak in group B (p-value=0.000). Pneumoperitoneum was achieved in all 150 cases. There was one case of visceral injury in which ileal mesentery was damaged while inserting trocar (p-value = 0.316). It was managed laparoscopically. No vascular injury was noted in both groups. Neither open nor closed techniques were associated with conversion to open cholecystectomy regarding access to peritoneal cavity. Two (1,3%) patients had post operative hematoma at the umbilical port site in group A whereas no one developed this complication in group B (p-value = 0.154) . Four (2.6 %) patients presented with surgical site infection at the umbilical trocar site(p-value=0.042). No complications were noted in the veress needle technique. No patient presented with umbilical port site hernia after 18 months of follow up. Conclusion: Both the open and closed method for gaining access into peritoneal cavity are safe but the veress needle method has advantage of less time taken to enter into the abdominal cavity as compared to open method and port site complications like port site hematoma formation and infection are more in open technique. https://www.journalrmc.com/index.php/JRMC/article/view/193PneumoperitoneumOpen methodVeress needleCholecystectomy
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Tariq Nawaz
spellingShingle Tariq Nawaz
Comparison Between Veress Needle (Closed)Technique and Open Technique in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College
Pneumoperitoneum
Open method
Veress needle
Cholecystectomy
author_facet Tariq Nawaz
author_sort Tariq Nawaz
title Comparison Between Veress Needle (Closed)Technique and Open Technique in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_short Comparison Between Veress Needle (Closed)Technique and Open Technique in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_full Comparison Between Veress Needle (Closed)Technique and Open Technique in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_fullStr Comparison Between Veress Needle (Closed)Technique and Open Technique in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison Between Veress Needle (Closed)Technique and Open Technique in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_sort comparison between veress needle (closed)technique and open technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy
publisher Rawalpindi Medical University
series Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College
issn 1683-3562
1683-3570
publishDate 2016-06-01
description Background: The aim of this study is to compare open cholecystectomy with needle (closed) technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of outcomes and complications. Methods : In this comparative study patients undergoing cholecystectomy were randomized to be in either of the two groups. Each containing 70 patients. Inclusion criteria was, patients with age 20 to 50 years with symptomatic gall stones disease, and without any other general contraindication for laparoscopic surgery . All patients were diagnosed by history ultrasound abdomen. All patients having contraindications to laparoscopic procedure like respiratory compromise, malignancy or any other comorbidities were excluded from the study.Group A constituted 70 patients and all those were randomized for open technique while group B also contained the same number of patients and they were randomized for Veress needle technique. Open technique was performed through skin incision and then dissecting the fascia for gaining access to abdomen by inserting trocar while the closed technique involves direct insertion of Veress needle into abdominal cavity for pneumoperitoneum creation and then trocar placement. The parameters compared were access time , gas leak, visceral injury, vascular injury, need for conversion, umbilical port site hematoma, umbilical port site infection, umbilical port site hernia. Patients were assessed after discharge at the first post operative day, seventh day then after 2 months, 6 months, and after 1 year and last visit on 18 months for assessment of complications. Results: Out of 140 patients, 90 were females and 50 patients were males. Age ranged from 22 to 55 years with mean age of 40 years. The mean time needed to create pneumoperitoneum was 4±1 minutes in veress needle technique and 5±1 in open method (p-value = 0.000) . Gas leak was observed in 15 patients in group A where as no patient had a gas leak in group B (p-value=0.000). Pneumoperitoneum was achieved in all 150 cases. There was one case of visceral injury in which ileal mesentery was damaged while inserting trocar (p-value = 0.316). It was managed laparoscopically. No vascular injury was noted in both groups. Neither open nor closed techniques were associated with conversion to open cholecystectomy regarding access to peritoneal cavity. Two (1,3%) patients had post operative hematoma at the umbilical port site in group A whereas no one developed this complication in group B (p-value = 0.154) . Four (2.6 %) patients presented with surgical site infection at the umbilical trocar site(p-value=0.042). No complications were noted in the veress needle technique. No patient presented with umbilical port site hernia after 18 months of follow up. Conclusion: Both the open and closed method for gaining access into peritoneal cavity are safe but the veress needle method has advantage of less time taken to enter into the abdominal cavity as compared to open method and port site complications like port site hematoma formation and infection are more in open technique.
topic Pneumoperitoneum
Open method
Veress needle
Cholecystectomy
url https://www.journalrmc.com/index.php/JRMC/article/view/193
work_keys_str_mv AT tariqnawaz comparisonbetweenveressneedleclosedtechniqueandopentechniqueinlaparoscopiccholecystectomy
_version_ 1724463671176855552