Effect of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on pain and inflammation in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess the effect of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on post operative pain and ten of the known inflammatory markers. BACKGROUND: The standard of care pneumoperitoneum set pressure in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is set to 12-14 mmHg, but many societies advocate to operate at the lowest pressure allowing adequate exposure of the operative field. Many trials have described the benefits of operating at a low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in terms of lower post operative pain, and better hemodynamic stability. But only few describe the effects on inflammatory markers and cytokines. METHODS: A prospective, double-blinded, randomised, controlled clinical trial, including patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients randomised into low-pressure (8-10 mmHg) vs. standard-pressure (12-14 mmHg) with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Perioperative variables were collected and analysed. RESULTS: one hundred patients were allocated, 50 patients in each study arm. Low-pressure patients reported lower median pain score 6-hour post operatively (5 vs. 6, p-value = 0.021) in comparison with standard-pressure group. Eight out of 10 inflammatory markers demonstrated better results in low-pressure group in comparison with standard-pressure, but the effect was not statistically significant. Total operative time and surgery difficulty was not significantly different between the two groups even in the hands of inexperienced surgeons. CONCLUSION: low-pressure laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with less post operative pain and lower rise of inflammatory markers. It is feasible with comparable complications to the standard of care. Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05530564/ September 7th, 2022).

Preoperative Dexamethasone for Airway-Related "Calibration Tube" Complications After Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Randomised Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgeries utilise Bougie device to guide stomach resection. The device implementation is associated with many underreported complications. This study aims to compare nebulised vs. intravenous preoperative dexamethasone in mitigating airway-related Bougie complications after sleeve gastrectomy. METHODOLOGY: This is a prospective double-blinded interventional study conducted by a tertiary hospital. The study involved 105 patients allocated to 3 groups: Group (I) received 8 mg dexamethasone intravenously (IV) preoperatively, group (N) received 8 mg dexamethasone from a nebulizer mask preoperatively, and Group (S) received nebulised normal saline. Outcomes evaluated were postoperative sore throat, odynophagia, change of voice, and nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: Nebulized dexamethasone was found to be significantly superior to IV dexamethasone in terms of postoperative sore throat at zero-hour (p = 0.001) and 1-h intervals (p = 0.011). No significant difference was found at 6- and 24-h intervals. For odynophagia, post hoc analysis showed there was no significant difference between (I), (N), and (S) groups. Incidence of change of voice was significantly lower in (N) and (I) groups compared to (S) group, with p values of 0.0067 and 0.00014, respectively. The incidence of post-operative sore-throat (PONV) in (I) group was significantly lower than incidences in (S) group (p = 0.00002) and (N) group (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: Preoperative nebulized and IV dexamethasone are effective strategies in mitigating complications related to mechanical effects of Bougie insertion. IV dexamethasone was as effective as nebulized dexamethasone in terms of late postoperative sore throat, and was superior in postoperative nausea and vomiting.