Previous article Table of Contents  Next article

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 279-282

An observational study: Effects of tenting of the abdominal wall on peak airway pressure in robotic radical prostatectomy surgery


Department of Anesthesia, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Avinash Sahebarav Kakde
2001/B, Atelier, Rustomjee Urbania, Near Saket Tower, Nashik Highway, Thane (West), Thane, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_560_16

Rights and Permissions
Date of Web Publication29-Jun-2017
 

  Abstract 


Background: Robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP) is associated with various anesthetic challenges due to pneumoperitoneum and deep Trendelenburg position. Tenting of the abdominal wall done in RRP surgery causes decrease in peak airway pressure leading to better ventilation. Herein, we aimed to describe the effects of tenting of the abdominal wall on peak airway pressure in RRP surgery performed in deep Trendelenburg position.
Methods: One hundred patients admitted for RRP in Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital of American Society of Anesthesiologists 1 and 2 physical status were included in the study. After undergoing preanesthesia work-up, patients received general anesthesia. Peak airway pressures were recorded after induction of general anesthesia, after insufflation of CO2, after giving Trendelenburg position, and after tenting of the abdominal wall with robotic arms.
Results: Mean peak airway pressure recording after induction in supine position was 19.5 ± 2.3 cm of H2O, after insufflation of CO2in supine position was 26.3 ± 2.6 cm of H2O, after giving steep head low was 34.1 ± 3.4 cm of H2O, and after tenting of the abdominal wall with robotic arms was 29.5 ± 2.5 cm of H2O. P value is highly statistically significant (P = 0.001).
Conclusion: Tenting of the abdominal wall during RRP is beneficial as it decreases peak airway pressure and helps in better ventilation and thus reduces the ill effects of raised peak airway pressure and intra-abdominal pressures.

Keywords: Gasless laparoscopic surgery; pneumoperitoneum; robotic radical prostatectomy; tenting


How to cite this article:
Kakde AS, Wagh HD. An observational study: Effects of tenting of the abdominal wall on peak airway pressure in robotic radical prostatectomy surgery. Saudi J Anaesth 2017;11:279-82

How to cite this URL:
Kakde AS, Wagh HD. An observational study: Effects of tenting of the abdominal wall on peak airway pressure in robotic radical prostatectomy surgery. Saudi J Anaesth [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Nov 23];11:279-82. Available from: http://www.saudija.org/text.asp?2017/11/3/279/206801




  Introduction Top


Laparoscopic prostatectomy was first performed by Bhandari et al. in 1997 using a transperitoneal approach.[1] An extraperitoneal approach was subsequently described by Raboy et al. With the first few clinical cases of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using a robotic system was developed and was also reported by Pruthi et al. in 2003.[2],[3] The introduction of the da Vinci Surgical System has transformed the field of robotic surgery and solved some of the limitations of traditional laparoscopic surgeries.

Although many features of RRP are like those of conventional laparoscopic urological procedures (such as laparoscopic prostatectomy), the procedure is associated with some drawbacks, which include limited access to intravenous route and airway of the patient with relatively long operating time, deep Trendelenburg position, and high intra-abdominal pressure (IAP).

Currently, most of the knowledge about robotic urological surgery has been derived from the gynecologic procedures performed in a less-deep Trendelenburg position and under lower IAP conditions. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeries that were performed under lower IAP, with a relatively shorter surgical duration, and in the head-up position, can have different effects on patients' respiratory and hemodynamic parameters and the risk of embolism is also different.[4] Herein, we aimed to describe the effects of tenting of the abdominal wall on peak airway pressure in RRP surgeries performed in deep Trendelenburg position.


  Methods Top


Study design

One hundred patients undergoing RRP in Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital of the American Society of Anesthesiologists 1 and 2 physical status were included in the study. As this study was an observational study, no written informed consent was taken.

All patients had routine blood investigations done which included complete blood count, renal function test, liver function test, coagulation profile, fasting blood sugar, HIV, HBsAg, and HCV reactivity, chest X-ray, electrocardiogram, and 2D echo (where necessary). On the day of surgery, patients were instructed to take their regular medication for systemic diseases if any and tablet pantoprazole 40 mg with sips of water. In the operating room, all patients were monitored with continuous electrocardiogram, pulse oximetry, EtCO2, Noninvasive blood pressure, and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring.

All patients received injection glycopyrrolate (0.2 mg) and injection midazolam (1 mg) intravenously 10 min before induction. General anesthesia was induced with fentanyl (1.5–2 mcg/kg), propofol (2–2.5 mg/kg) with sevoflurane (1%–2%) and O2. Atracurium (0.8–1 mg/kg) was used for endotracheal intubation. After induction of anesthesia, patients were maintained with sevoflurane/desflurane with O2+Air. Minimum alveolar concentration value adjusted to maintain BIS value of 40–60. Infusion of atracurium (5 mg/ml) at rate of 5 ml/h and fentanyl (10 mcg/ml) at rate of 3–5 ml/h. All the patients were monitored for anesthesia depth with BIS monitoring to maintain BIS value between 40 and 60.

Peak airway pressure was recorded in each patient after induction, after insufflation of CO2, after giving head-low position, and after tenting of the abdominal wall with robotic arms.

The robotic arms were attached to the abdominal robotic ports, which is commonly referred as “Docking.” Docking is performed in steep head-low position which is the final position. At this point of time, the IAP was maintained at 15 mm of mercury and peak airway pressure was measured. Once docking procedure was completed, the abdominal wall was lifted in a manner like “lap lift” as in gasless laparoscopic surgery [Figure 1] which we refer to as “tenting of the abdominal wall.”
Figure 1: Tenting during gasless laparoscopic surgery (image obtained from Google search engine)

Click here to view


This was done for all the abdominal ports. Then, peak airway pressure was recorded at this time.

All the patients were extubated at the end of surgery.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was done using repeated measures ANOVA test.


  Results Top


One hundred patients of RRP were included in the study. [Table 1] and [Graph 1] shows peak airway pressure recording after induction, after insufflation of CO2, after giving head-low position, and after tenting with robotic arms. Mean peak airway pressure recording after induction in supine position was 19.5 ± 2.3 cm of H2O, after insufflation of CO2 in supine position was 26.3 ± 2.6 cm of H2O, after giving steep head low was 34.1 ± 3.4 cm of H2O, and after tenting of the abdominal wall with robotic arms was 29.5 ± 2.5 cm of H2O. [Table 1] shows P value is highly significant (P = 0.001).
Table 1: Comparison of peak airway pressures in various positions of patients during surgery

Click here to view




  Discussion Top


In the present study, we aimed to describe effects of tenting of the abdominal wall and its effects on peak airway pressure in patients undergoing RRP in Trendelenburg position.

Insufflation of the abdomen with CO2 is not benign. Increased IAP after CO2 insufflation affects venous return (VR), systemic vascular resistance, and myocardial function. Initially, owing to autotransfusion of pooled blood from the splanchnic circulation, there is an increase in the circulating blood volume, resulting in an increase in VR and cardiac output. However, further increase in the IAP result in the compression of the inferior vena cava, reduction in VR, and subsequent decrease in cardiac output. Lung volume decreases, mean arterial pressure increases whereas cardiac index decreases, and absorption of CO2 causes hypercarbia and a concomitant decrease in blood pH.[5],[6] Any of these can lead to cardiopulmonary complications.

The supine position and general anesthesia decrease functional residual capacity (FRC). Pneumoperitoneum and the Trendelenburg position cause cephalad shift of the diaphragm, further decreasing FRC, possibly to values less than closing volume; this causes airway collapse, atelectasis, ventilation–perfusion (V/Q) mismatch, potential hypoxemia, and hypercarbia. There is an increase in airway resistance and reduction in compliance which potentiates the risk of barotrauma with positive pressure ventilation. Intracranial pressure is increased by the rise in IAP, which may result in a decrease in the cerebral perfusion pressure, especially if there is a reduction in cardiac output. In addition, unintentional injury to vessels can lead to massive hemorrhage or CO2 embolism requiring rapid resuscitation.[5],[6],[7] Routine capnography should be used in all laparoscopic cases as it allows the adequacy of mechanical ventilation to be assessed.

Tenting of the abdominal wall is performed after abdominal port insertion procedure is completed. After robotic arm docking, abdominal wall is lifted with the help of robotic arms with the aim of tenting which result in a decrease in IAP, ultimately leading to decrease in peak airway pressure [Figure 2],[Figure 3],[Figure 4].
Figure 2: Before tenting of abdominal wall (original picture taken in the operation theater with mobile phone camera)

Click here to view
Figure 3: After tenting of abdominal wall (original picture taken in the operation theater with mobile phone camera)

Click here to view
Figure 4: Photograph after docking and tenting of abdominal wall (original picture taken in the operation theater with mobile phone camera)

Click here to view


Gasless laparoscopic surgery is performed to reduce the effect of pneumoperitoneum. In gasless laparoscopy, abdominal wall is lifted with a subcutaneously inserted abdominal wall-lifting system to create a space for surgeon to work without creating pneumoperitoneum.[8] Tenting of the abdominal wall in our study mimics the same as in gasless laparoscopic surgery giving more space intra-abdominally and reducing the peak airway pressure.

In this study, mean peak airway pressure recording after induction was 19.5 ± 2.3 cm of H2O, after insufflations of CO2 was 26.3 ± 2.6 cm of H2O, after giving steep head low was 34.1 ± 3.4 cm of H2O, and after tenting with robotic arms was 29.5 ± 2.5 cm of H2O (P = <0.0001 highly significant).

Tenting of the abdominal wall done in RRP surgery causes a decrease in peak airway pressure leading to better ventilation as proven in the statistics.

Tenting of the abdominal wall leads to increase in working space for surgeon with reduced need to increase abdominal pressure, ultimately reducing peak airway pressure. Although tenting does not eliminate all adverse effects of pneumoperitoneum and high abdominal pressure, tenting is helpful to improve ventilation of the patient and reducing complications of high peak airway pressure such as barotrauma, pneumothorax, and ventilator-induced lung injury. Thereby helping in reducing morbidity associated with peak airway pressure.


  Conclusion Top


Robotic Prostatectomy is associated with various anesthetic challenges due to pneumoperitoneum and deep Trendelenburg position. Tenting of the abdominal wall done during robotic prostatectomy is beneficial by decreasing peak airway pressure and helps in better ventilation and in return reduces the ill effects of raised peak airway and abdominal pressures.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Bhandari A, McIntire L, Kaul SA, Hemal AK, Peabody JO, Menon M. Perioperative complications of robotic radical prostatectomy after the learning curve. J Urol 2005;174:915-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P. Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1997;50:849-53.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Pruthi RS, Nielsen ME, Nix J, Smith A, Schultz H, Wallen EM. Robotic radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: Surgical and pathological outcomes in 100 consecutive cases. J Urol 2010;183:510-4.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Cunningham AJ, Brull SJ. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Anesthetic implications. Anesth Analg 1993;76:1120-33.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Goodale RL, Beebe DS, McNevin MP, Boyle M, Letourneau JG, Abrams JH, et al. Hemodynamic, respiratory, and metabolic effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1993;166:533-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Kalmar AF, Foubert L, Hendrickx JF, Absalom A, Mortier EP, Strups MM, et al. Influence of steep Trendelenburg position and CO2 pneumoperitoneum on cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory homeostasis during robotic prostatectomy. Br J Anaesth 2010;104:433-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Phong SV, Koh LK. Anaesthesia for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: Considerations for laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg position. Anaesth Intensive Care 2007;35:281-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Paolucci V, Gutt CN, Schaeff B, Encke A. Gasless laparoscopy in abdominal surgery. Surg Endosc 1995;9:497-500.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
Previous article    Next article
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  IN THIS Article
   Abstract
  Introduction
  Methods
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed528    
    Printed8    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded43    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal