Laparoscopic Peritoneal Entry Techniques

8/19/2019 Laparoscopic Peritoneal Entry Techniques

1/52

Abdominal Entry forLaparoscopic Surgery

Larry R. Glazerman MD, MBA

April 2013


2/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Relevant Disclosure

• Covidien

! Preceptor, Consultant

• CooperSurgical

!

Preceptor, Consultant

•

Intuitive Surgical

! Proctor


3/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Objectives

• Interpret the data regarding techniques of laparoscopic abdominal entry

•

Describe three different techniques for primary trocar entry

•

Discuss placement of auxiliary trocars


4/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Preoperative Evaluation

• Evaluate for the possibility of adhesions

! Prior operative reports

! History of peritonitis

! Abdominal scars

• Umbilical anatomy

• Distribution of abdominal wall adiposity

! Obese patient

! Thin patient


5/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

In the OR

• Empty gastric contents

•

Position patient

•

Examine abdomen

!

Size

! Surgical scars

! Laxity of abdominal wall

! Umbilical anatomy (?hernia)

!

Palpate bifurcation and sacral promontory! Presence of mass


6/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Veress Needle Technique

• Infiltrate with local anesthesia

! Pre-emptive analgesia

• Incision at base of umbilicus


7/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Veress Needle Technique

• Lift abdominal wall

! Manual

! Towel clips

•

Whether elevation of the umbilicus either manually or with towel clipsreally elevates the peritoneum has been a subject of debate


8/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Avoiding the Great Vessels: Size Does Matter

Hurd, et al, Obstet Gynecol 1992


9/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


10/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Avoiding Vascular Injuries

Anatomy of Abdominal Wall/Retroperitoneal Blood Vessels

• Abdominal CT scans from 35 reproductive-age women were reviewed todetermine the location of the umbilicus

• The location of the umbilicus, but not the aortic bifurcation, was more

caudal in heavier women• The umbilicus is often located at or cephalad to the aortic bifurcation, and

consistently located cephalad to where the left common iliac vein crosses

the midline.

WW Hurd, RO Bude, JO DeLancey, ML Pearl. Obstet Gynecol., Jul 1992; 80: 48 - 51.


11/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Isaacson Keith., ed. Complications of Gynecologic Endoscopic Surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2006.

Effect of obesity on location of great vessels


12/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Trocar insertion with

operating table flat

Position of the trocar

and great vessels intrendelenburg


13/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Determining needle placement

• Four tests reported

! Double click

! Hanging drop

!

Aspiration

! Intraabdominal pressure

• Opening intraabdominal pressure is the best measure of intraperitoneal

placement

• Liver dullness is lost after 500-700 cc of gas

Teoh, J Min Invasive Gyn, 12:153, 2005Vilos, J Min Invasive Gyn , 10:415, 2003


14/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Veress needle insufflation

• No need to limit flow


15/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Veress needle insufflation

• Advantage of hyperdistension


16/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Trocar insertion


17/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

"Safety Shielded Trocars"

• In 1996, based upon a lack of data to support safety claims, FDA askedmanufacturers to refrain from using the term “safety trocar” to refer to

shielded trocars


18/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Shielded “Safety” Trocars

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


19/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


20/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


21/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Step System Trocar Insertion

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


22/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Step System trocars

•

3,735 Radially Expanded

Access (REA) Trocar Sites in

747 bariatric surgery patients

! 1/2002 to 4/2005

!

Two 12 mm; three 5 mm; nofascial closure

! One Hasson; figure-of-eight

#1 Polysorb closure

•

0/3,735 (0%) hernias in REAsites

•

10/747 (1.34%) hernias at

Hasson site

Johnson WH, et al. Surg Endosc. 2006

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


23/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Optical trocar

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


24/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Visual trocar

• 3,744 Visual Entry Trocar (VET) Sites in844 bariatric surgery patients

! 7/2000 to 12/2003

!

Five 12 mm; two 5 mm; no fascialclosure

• 2/3,744 (0.2%) hernias

Rosenthal RJ ,et al. Surg Endosc. 2006

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


25/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Trocar insertion

• Trocar held in palm of hand

•

Index finger extends down shaft

•

Remove obturator

!

Depending on type of trocar, gas should be heard escaping

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


26/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Open Laparoscopy

• Hasson technique

! First described in 1971

! Involves the use of a modified trocar and a very

specific surgical technique

• Fewer unrecognized bowel complications

•

Nullifies the risk of gas embolism or injury to

major vessels

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


27/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Hasson trocar

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


28/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Open Laparoscopy

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


29/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Open laparoscopy

• Risk of bowel injury 0.1%

! The majority of injuries occur early in the “learning curve”

• Risk of post-op infection 0.4%

•

Risk of vascular injury ~0%

•

Risk of gas embolism 0%

•

? Longer

Hasson, Gynaecol Endosc, Dec. 1999

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


30/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Direct Trocar Insertion

• First described in 1978

•

Correct placement is confirmed before CO2 is attached to cannula

! No risk of gas embolus

•

? preferable in obese

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


31/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Direct Trocar Insertion

• Two randomized trials

! Nezhat, et al (Obstet Gynecol 1991)

•

200 pts: Veress, reusable direct, and disposable shielded direct

• Significantly more minor complications in Veress needle group (22% vs. 6%)

! Byron and Markenson, (Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993)

• 252 pts: Veress vs. direct

• No major comps. More minor in Veress.

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


32/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Alternative sites

• Left upper quadrant (Palmer’s Point)

•

Supraumbilical

•

Midline suprapubic

•

Trans-fundal

• Trans-forniceal

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


33/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Fertility and sterility vol. 79, no. 2, february 2003

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


34/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Transforniceal insufflation

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


35/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

Transfundal insufflation

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


36/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

The Bottom Line

• “Despite the variety of methods described for the creation ofpneumoperitoneum, no one method can claim to be fundamentally

superior to any other.”

! Rosen, et al, Obstet Gynecol Surv 1998;53(3):167-174

• In order to demonstrate 33% reduction with 80% power and 95%

confidence, a study would need >800,000 cases

! A Consensus Document Concerning Laparoscopic Entry Techniques:

Middlesbrough, March 19-20, 1999

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


37/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


38/52

Accessory Ports

• Abdominal Wall Vessel Injury

! Most common complication of multi-port laparoscopy

! AAGL Survey of LAVH 1995

•

Incidence of Inf. Epigastric Laceration: 24/1000

•

Morbidity

! Significant hemorrhage

! Hematoma

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


39/52

Abdominal Wall Vessels

• Avoidance

! Transilluminate

•

Will avoid superficial epigastrics

• Will never illuminate inferior epigastrics

! Visualization of vessel course

! Use the “Rule of 8’s”

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


40/52


LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


41/52

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


42/52

Anterior Abdominal Wall Anatomy

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


43/52


• Management

! Superficial Epigastric Vessel Injury

•

Conservative Observation

• Pressure dressing/heating pad

! Inferior Epigastric Vessel Injury

• Coagulate

• Suture directly/indirectly

• Suture with ligature carrier

• Foley balloon tamponade

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


44/52

Incisional Hernia Risk Factors

• Multiple ancillary ports

•

Extirpative procedures

•

Instruments requiring 10-12 mm ports

•

Increased operating time

• Use of port anchoring devices

•

Failure to close fascial defect

• Prior history of hernias

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


45/52

Incisional Hernias

Site: Umbilical 36%

Extraumbilical 64%

Size 10 mm 0.23%12 mm 3.1%

Time to reoperation 9.6 days

Bowel resection 19%

Boike et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


46/52

Cochrane Review

• “On the basis of evidence investigated in this review, there appears to beno evidence of benefit in terms of safety of one technique over another.”

• “The included studies are small and cannot be used to confirm safety of

any particular technique.”

Ahmad G, Duffy JMN, Phillips K,Watson A. Laparoscopic Entry Techniques. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

2008, Issue 2.

Art. No.: CD006583. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub2.

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


47/52

Cochrane Review

• Open entry vs. Closed Entry (Veress or Direct)

! No advantage with either

• Open entry vs. Direct entry

!

No advantage with either

•

Open entry vs. Veress entry

! No advantage with either

Ahmad G, Duffy JMN, Phillips K,Watson A. Laparoscopic Entry Techniques. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008,

Issue 2.


LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


48/52

Cochrane Review

• Direct entry vs. Veress entry

! No advantage of either

• STEP trocar vs. standard trocars

!

Less extraperitoneal and failed entry with STEP

! No advantage for injury with either


Issue 2.


LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


49/52

Cochrane Review

• Lifting vs. not lifting abdominal wall

! Successful entry increased with NOT lifting abdominal wall, without

increased complications


Issue 2.


LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


50/52

Even data has limits!

• 42 YO G0

•

PSH – lap chole

•

Admitted for robotic myomectomy

•

Step trocar in umbilicus

! Opening pressure 5 mm hg

•

12 mm trocar placed through sheath

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY


51/52

Transumbilical colonoscopy

LAPAROSCOPIC ENTRY 52


52/52

Date post:	07-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sgod34
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Laparoscopic Peritoneal Entry Techniques

Documents