Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background Obesity is linked to the retention of carbon dioxide, headaches, and idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Although studies indicate that different ventilation modalities may change intracranial pressure and carbon dioxide partial pressure, their impact on bariatric surgery patients remains unclear. This study aimed to monitor, compare, and analyze respiratory mechanics, carbon dioxide partial pressure, and intracranial pressure under three ventilation modes: pressure control (PC), volume control (VC), and pressure-regulated volume control (PRVC) during bariatric surgery to explore the clinical significance and value of the PRVC ventilation mode. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study. Ninety patients who underwent bariatric surgery were randomly randomized into three groups: Group I utilized pressure control ventilation (PC), Group II used volume control ventilation (VC), and Group III utilized pressure-regulated volume control ventilation (PRVC). Measurements were obtained at five time points: before pneumoperitoneum (T1), 5 minutes after pneumoperitoneum (T2), 10 minutes after pneumoperitoneum (T3), 15 minutes after pneumoperitoneum (T4), and 20 minutes after pneumoperitoneum (T5). The collected parameters included: intracranial pressure (ICP, measured through the optic nerve sheath diameter [ONSD]), esophageal pressure (PES), average airway pressure (PAWM), peak airway pressure (PAP), arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO2), end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration or partial pressure (ETCO2), tidal volume (TV), mean arterial pressure (MAP, calculated as MAP = diastolic pressure + 1/3 pulse pressure difference), and heart rate (HR). Results In all three breathing modes, pneumoperitoneum induced various degrees of increase in the ONSD, PAWM, PAP, and PES. There were no significant differences in PAWM among the groups at any time point (P > 0.05). However, the PES was much higher in the VC mode following pneumoperitoneum than in the PC and PRVC modes. Compared to the other two groups, the TV was considerably lower in the PC group following pneumoperitoneum (P < 0.05). PaCO2 and ETCO2 increased in the PC and VC groups following pneumoperitoneum, resulting in significant increases in ONSD, MAP, and HR (P < 0.05), but the PRVC group showed no significant changes in ONSD, MAP, and HR (P > 0.05). Conclusion The results of this study demonstrate that the PRVC mode can successfully prevent increases in ICP, PAWM, PAP, and PES caused by pneumoperitoneum. It also prevents abnormal TV fluctuations during surgery, ensuring the stability of the patient's vital signs during the perioperative period. Therefore, the PRVC mode is the ideal ventilation mode for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Additionally, ONSD ultrasound assessment, a noninvasive method for evaluating the ICP, can be safely employed during laparoscopic bariatric surgery.
Background Obesity is linked to the retention of carbon dioxide, headaches, and idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Although studies indicate that different ventilation modalities may change intracranial pressure and carbon dioxide partial pressure, their impact on bariatric surgery patients remains unclear. This study aimed to monitor, compare, and analyze respiratory mechanics, carbon dioxide partial pressure, and intracranial pressure under three ventilation modes: pressure control (PC), volume control (VC), and pressure-regulated volume control (PRVC) during bariatric surgery to explore the clinical significance and value of the PRVC ventilation mode. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study. Ninety patients who underwent bariatric surgery were randomly randomized into three groups: Group I utilized pressure control ventilation (PC), Group II used volume control ventilation (VC), and Group III utilized pressure-regulated volume control ventilation (PRVC). Measurements were obtained at five time points: before pneumoperitoneum (T1), 5 minutes after pneumoperitoneum (T2), 10 minutes after pneumoperitoneum (T3), 15 minutes after pneumoperitoneum (T4), and 20 minutes after pneumoperitoneum (T5). The collected parameters included: intracranial pressure (ICP, measured through the optic nerve sheath diameter [ONSD]), esophageal pressure (PES), average airway pressure (PAWM), peak airway pressure (PAP), arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO2), end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration or partial pressure (ETCO2), tidal volume (TV), mean arterial pressure (MAP, calculated as MAP = diastolic pressure + 1/3 pulse pressure difference), and heart rate (HR). Results In all three breathing modes, pneumoperitoneum induced various degrees of increase in the ONSD, PAWM, PAP, and PES. There were no significant differences in PAWM among the groups at any time point (P > 0.05). However, the PES was much higher in the VC mode following pneumoperitoneum than in the PC and PRVC modes. Compared to the other two groups, the TV was considerably lower in the PC group following pneumoperitoneum (P < 0.05). PaCO2 and ETCO2 increased in the PC and VC groups following pneumoperitoneum, resulting in significant increases in ONSD, MAP, and HR (P < 0.05), but the PRVC group showed no significant changes in ONSD, MAP, and HR (P > 0.05). Conclusion The results of this study demonstrate that the PRVC mode can successfully prevent increases in ICP, PAWM, PAP, and PES caused by pneumoperitoneum. It also prevents abnormal TV fluctuations during surgery, ensuring the stability of the patient's vital signs during the perioperative period. Therefore, the PRVC mode is the ideal ventilation mode for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Additionally, ONSD ultrasound assessment, a noninvasive method for evaluating the ICP, can be safely employed during laparoscopic bariatric surgery.
Background/Objective: POCUS is an invaluable tool for anatomical variation assessment, guidance of invasive interventions, and diagnosis of critical conditions that may change the anesthesiologist’s plan of care. This technology increases success rate, decreases time to surgery, and maximizes outcomes. The objective of this pilot program evaluation was to identify the anesthesiologists’ systems and processes for utilizing POCUS in clinical decision-making for patients during the perioperative phases of care for improved outcomes. Materials/Methods: A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to identify differences across groups (scan type). The independent variable was the type of POCUS examination. The dependent variables included the patient’s: (1) Perioperative Status; (2) Cardiothoracic Anesthesiologist’s Review of Patient History and Formulating the Clinical Question; (3) Overall Risk Potential; (4) Aspiration Potential; (5) Issues Related to Cardiovascular Hemodynamics; (6) Issues Related to Volume Status; (7) Clinical Question Answered by POCUS; (8) Change in Plan of Care; (9) Interventions; and (10) Pharmacological Interventions. Results: MANOVA findings (Wilks’ λ) identified a statistically significant interaction between POCUS scan type and the cardiothoracic anesthesiologist’s clinical decision-making (p < 0.0001). The following four criteria were statistically significant: (1) patients (64%) were examined with POCUS preoperatively (p < 0.05); (2) patients (95%) identified as having some type of overall risk potential (p < 0.05); (3) patients (36%) specifically identified as an aspiration risk (p < 0.0001); and (4) patients (41%) identified with issues related to cardiovascular hemodynamics (p < 0.001). Conclusions: POCUS is a proven imaging modality that is easy, portable, sensitive, and specific for identifying various anatomical landmarks. POCUS utilization in the perioperative setting has potential to have a profound impact on successful surgical completion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.