KUMJ | VOL. 19 | NO. 3 | ISSUE 75 | JULY - SEPT. 2021
Comparison between Simple and Classical Techniques to Create Closed Pneumoperitoneum
Gharti BB, Shrestha PM, Shrestha A, Basnet RB, Shah C, Adhikari B
Abstract: Background
Closed method of pneumoperitoneum using Veress needle is an established
technique. Classical closed technique is popular. Simple technique is a modified
closed technique.
Objective
To compare the classical and simple techniques of closed pneumoperitoneum.
Method
This study was conducted in the department of urology, Bir hospital from August
1
st
2019 to March 30
th
2021. Total 114 patients were randomized into simple and
classical technique of creating closed pneumoperitoneum. Time taken for creation
of pneumoperitoneum, complications and failure of creating pneumoperitoneum in
each group noted and analyzed. Chi square test, Fischer exact test and student t test
were used and p < 0.05 considered significant.
Result
Among 114 patients, 61 in simple and 53 in classical technique allocated. In simple
technique, mean age was 42.98±18.21 years, BMI was 21.84±2.57 kg/m
, mean time
for pneumoperitoneum creation was 108.07±21.14 seconds. In classical technique,
mean age was 40.15±17.58 years, BMI was 21.94±2.54 (kg/m
2
), mean time for
pneumoperitoneum creation was 189.70±32.21 seconds. Mean time was less in
simple technique than classical technique (p < 0.001). Complication rate observed
was 6% in each technique (p=0.797) with cumulative rate of 10%. Omental injury
was seen in 3.2% in simple technique and 5.6% in classical technique (p=0.662).
Retroperitoneal insufflation was seen in 6.5% in simple technique and 5.6% in
classical technique (p=0.842). No failed pneumoperitoneum was observed in both
groups.
Conclusion
Simple technique is as effective, reproducible and safe method as classical technique
of creating closed pneumoperitoneum.
Keyword : Classical technique, Pneumoperitoneum, Veress needle
