4.2 Article

The effect of pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position on respiratory mechanics during pelviscopic surgery

Journal

KOREAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 5, Pages 329-334

Publisher

KOREAN SOC ANESTHESIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2010.59.5.329

Keywords

Airway pressure; Head-down tilt; Lung compliance; Pelviscopy; Pneumoperitoneum

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Conventional pelviscopic surgery requires pneumoperitoneum with CO2 gas insufflation and lithotomy-Trendelenburg position. Pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position may influence intraoperative respiratory mechanics in anesthetic management. This study was conducted to investigate the influence of pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position on respiratory compliance and ventilation pressure. Methods: Twenty-five patients scheduled for elective gynecologic laparoscopy were evaluated. The patients had no preexisting lung or heart disease or pathologic lung function. Conventional general anesthesia with thiopental sodium, lidocaine, rocuronium, and sevoflurane was administered. The peak inspiratory pressure, plateau pressure, and end-tidal CO2 were measured before and after creation of pneumoperitoneum with an intraabdominal pressure of 12 mmHg, then after 10 minutes and 30 minutes in the 20 degrees Trendelenburg position, and after deflation of pneumoperitoneum. The dynamic lung compliance was then calculated. Results: Following creation of pneumoperitoneum, there was a significant increase in peak inspiratory pressure (6 cmH(2)O), plateau pressure (7 cmH(2)O), and end-tidal CO2 (5 mmHg), while dynamic lung compliance decreased by 12 ml/cmH(2)O. Overall, the Trendelenburg position induced no significant hemodynamic or pulmonary changes. Conclusions: The effects of pneumoperitoneum significantly reduced dynamic lung compliance and increased peak inspiratory and plateau pressures. The Tredelenburg position did not change these parameters.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available