Active aspiration versus simple compression to remove residual gas from the abdominal cavity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: After laparoscopic surgical procedures, residual gas in the abdominal cavity can cause post-operative pain, which is commonly located in the shoulder region. Previous studies suggested that post-laparoscopy pain can be prevented by active suctioning of intraabdominal gas at the end of surgery. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial (registered at DRKS 00,023,286) compared active suctioning versus manual compression in their ability to reduce pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were eligible for trial participation. The primary outcome measure was post-operative pain intensity after 12 h. All the patients were examined by MRI scanning to quantify the intraabdominal gas volume after the intervention. RESULTS: As planned, 60 patients were recruited. The two groups (n = 30 each) were very similar at the end of surgery. Active suctioning reduced the amount of residual pneumoperitoneum more than simple compression (median volume 1.5 versus 3.0 ml, p = 0.002). The primary outcome measure, abdominal pain after 12 h, was slightly lower in the intervention group (- 0.5 points, 95% confidence interval + 0.5 to - 1.7), but without reaching statistical significance (p = 0.37). After 12 h, shoulder pain was present in 10 patients in each group (p = 1.0). Independent of group assignment, however, residual gas volume was significantly associated with higher pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Active suctioning appears to have only a minor preventive effect on post-laparoscopy pain, probably because evacuation of the pneumoperitoneum remains incomplete in some patients. Other more effective maneuvers for gas removal should be preferred.

Use of plastic adhesive skin drapes in cancer patients undergoing totally implantable vascular access port (TIVAP) placement-a randomized controlled pilot study.

PURPOSE: A totally implantable vascular access port (TIVAP) is commonly required in cancer patients. Possible adverse events after TIVAP implantation include surgical site infection (SSI) and port-related bacteremia. This study examined whether adhesive surgical drapes can reduce the risk of SSI. METHODS: A total of 100 mostly cancer patients were randomized into two groups before undergoing TIVAP implantation by surgical cut-down. In one group, an adhesive, non-impregnated drape was applied to the skin prior to incision, while the control group underwent surgery without a drape. Swabs were taken from the surgical site and sent for microbiologic testing. SSI rates were compared between groups. RESULTS: No SSI occurred within 30 days after surgery. In each group, two patients died. There were 5 complications (port thrombosis, port dislocation, two cases of pneumothorax, skin allergy), all in the intervention group (p = 0.056). Using the incision drape prolonged procedure time by + 5 min (95% CI - 1 to + 10, p = 0.125). Microbiologic swab testing failed to detect any effect of the incision drape. CONCLUSIONS: Plastic adhesive skin drapes may be unnecessary in cancer patients who undergo surgical implantation of a TIVAP.