MARATTO

article · PLoS ONE

Randomized controlled trial comparing low pressure (8 mmHg) versus high pressure (14 mmHg) CO2 insufflation on postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Protocol

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard for treating symptomatic gallstone disease. Pneumoperitoneum is essential for adequate visualization during the procedure and is typically maintained at a standard pressure of 12-14 mmHg. However, high insufflation pressure may contribute to increased postoperative pain. This study aims to assess whether low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (8 mmHg) reduces postoperative pain compared to standard pressure (14 mmHg), without compromising operative safety or efficacy. We hypothesize that low pressure pneumoperitoneum at 8 mmHg reduces postoperative pain, without increasing operation time or postoperative morbidity. METHODS: This is a single-center, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. Consecutive Adult patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either low-pressure (8 mmHg) or standard-pressure (14 mmHg) pneumoperitoneum. The primary outcome is postoperative abdominal pain assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 6 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include VAS pain scores at 12 and 24 hours, postoperative nausea and/or vomiting, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative 30-day morbidity. The enrollment of patients will be done between November 12, 2024 to December 31, 2025. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06685250. CONCLUSION: If proven effective, low-pressure pneumoperitoneum may represent a simple strategy to improve postoperative comfort in laparoscopic cholecystectomy without compromising surgical outcomes.

Research topics

  • Abdominal Surgery and Complications
  • Thermal Regulation in Medicine
  • Respiratory Support and Mechanisms

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339161

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.