1.
Effects of different doses of magnesium sulfate on pneumoperitoneum-related hemodynamic changes in patients undergoing gastrointestinal laparoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.
Tan, W, Qian, DC, Zheng, MM, Lu, X, Han, Y, Qi, DY
BMC anesthesiology. 2019;(1):237
Abstract
BACKGROUND The infusion of magnesium sulfate is well known to reduce arterial pressure and attenuate hemodynamic response to pneumoperitoneum. This study aimed to investigate whether different doses of magnesium sulfate can effectively attenuate the pneumoperitoneum-related hemodynamic changes and the release of vasopressin in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS Sixty-nine patients undergoing laparoscopic partial gastrectomy were randomized into three groups: group L received magnesium sulfate 30 mg/kg loading dose and 15 mg/kg/h continuous maintenance infusion for 1 h; group H received magnesium sulfate 50 mg/kg followed by 30 mg/kg/h for 1 h; and group S (control group) received same volume 0.9% saline infusion, immediately before the induction of pneumoperitoneum. Systemic vascular resistance (SVR), cardiac output (CO), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), central venous pressure (CVP), serum vasopressin and magnesium concentrations were measured. The extubation time, visual analogue scale were also assessed. The primary outcome is the difference in SVR between different groups. The secondary outcome is the differences of other indicators between groups, such as CO, MAP, HR, CVP, vasopressin and postoperative pain score. RESULTS Pneumoperitoneum instantly resulted in a significant reduction of cardiac output and an increase in mean arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance, central venous pressure and heart rate in the control group (P < 0.01). The mean arterial pressure (T2 - T4), systemic vascular resistance (T2 - T3), central venous pressure(T3-T5) and the level of serum vasopressin were significantly lower (P < 0.05) and the cardiac output (T2 - T3) was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in group H than those in the control group. The mean arterial pressure (T4), systemic vascular resistance (T2), and central venous pressure(T3-T4) were significantly lower in group H than those in group L (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the visual analog scales at 5 min and 20 min, the level of vasopressin, and the dose of remifentanil were significantly decreased in group H compared to the control group and group L (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION Magnesium sulfate could safely and effectively attenuate the pneumoperitoneum-related hemodynamic instability during gastrointestinal laparoscopy and improve postoperative pain at serum magnesium concentrations above 2 mmol/L. TRIAL REGISTRATION The study was retrospectively registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; the registration number is ChiCTR-IPD-17011145, principal investigator: D.Y. Q., date of registration: April 13, 2017.
2.
Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Tan, S, Wu, G, Zhuang, Q, Xi, Q, Meng, Q, Jiang, Y, Han, Y, Yu, C, Yu, Z, Li, N
International journal of surgery (London, England). 2016;:124-32
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The role of laparoscopic surgery in the repair for peptic ulcer disease is unclear. The present study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease. METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and references of identified articles and relevant reviews. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, mortality, and reoperation. Secondary outcomes were operative time, postoperative pain, postoperative hospital stay, nasogastric tube duration, and time to resume diet. Statistical analysis was carried out by Review Manage software. RESULTS Five RCTs investigating a total of 549 patients, of whom, 279 received laparoscopic repair and 270 received open repair, were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between these two procedures in some primary outcomes including overal postoperative complication rate, mortality, and reoperation rate. Subcategory analysis of postoperative complications showed that laparoscopic repair had also similar rates of repair site leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection as open surgery, except of the lower surgical site infection rate (P < 0.05). In addition, there were also no significant differences between these two procedures in some second outcomes including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, and time to resume diet, but laparoscopic repair had shorter nasogastric tube duration (P < 0.05) and less postoperative pain (P < 0.05) than open surgery. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic surgery is comparable with open surgery in the setting of repair for perforated peptic ulcer. The obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery are the lower surgical site infection rate, shorter nasogastric tube duration and less postoperative pain. However, more higher quality studies should be undertaken to further assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repair for peptic ulcer disease.