Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2026
Deep Neuromuscular Blockade Leads to a Larger Intraabdominal Volume During Laparoscopy
Published on: June 25, 2013
Comparison of intraabdominal pressures using the gastroscope and laparoscope for transgastric surgery
O Meireles1, S V Kantsevoy, A N Kalloo
1Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Halsted 608, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Background:
The peroral transgastric endoscopic approach for intraabdominal procedures appears to be feasible, although multiple aspects of this approach remain unclear. This study aimed to measure intraperitoneal pressure in a porcine model during the peroral transgastric endoscopic approach, comparing an endoscopic on-demand insufflator/light source with a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator.
Methods:
All experiments were performed with 50-kg female pigs under general anesthesia. A standard upper endoscope was advanced perorally through a gastric wall incision into the peritoneal cavity. The peritoneal cavity was insufflated with operating room air from an endoscopic light source/insufflator. Intraperitoneal pressure was measured by three routes: (1) through the endoscope biopsy channel, (2) through a 5-mm transabdominal laparoscopic port, and (3) through a 16-gauge Veress needle inserted into the peritoneal cavity through the anterior abdominal wall. The source of insufflation alternated between on-demand manual insufflation through the endoscopic light source/insufflator using room air and a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator using carbon dioxide (CO(2)).
Results:
Six acute experiments were performed. Intraperitoneal pressure measurements showed good correlation regardless of measurement route and were independent of the type of insufflation gas, whether room air or CO(2). On-demand insufflation with the endoscopic light source/insufflator resulted in a wide variation in pressures (range, 4-32 mmHg; mean, 16.0 +/- 11.7). Intraabdominal pressures using a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator demonstrated minimal fluctuation (range, 8-15 mmHg; mean, 11.0 +/- 2.2 mmHg) around a predetermined value.
Conclusion:
Use of an on-demand unregulated endoscopic light source/insufflator for translumenal surgery can cause large variation in intraperitoneal pressures and intraabdominal hypertension, leading to the risk of hemodynamic and respiratory compromise. Safety may favor well-controlled intraabdominal pressures achieved with a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator.
