Direct trocar insertion without previous pneumoperitoneum versus insertion after insufflation with Veress needle in...

The aim of this study was to determine whether direct trocar entry without prior pneumoperitoneum at umbilical level (DTI) can be a safe alternative to access the abdominal cavity in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. We present a prospective observational analytical study of cohorts, comparing DTI with umbilical entry with trocar after previous insufflation with a Veress needle at umbilical level (V). The study period was performed from June 2013 to April 2016; data was collected on 600 patients who underwent gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in the risk of suffering a complication during the access manoeuvres between DTI (6.49%) and V (7.39%), OR 0.89 (95% CI: 0.42-1.81). The duration of the access manoeuvres was 69 s in DTI and 193 s in V (p < .001). The percentage of patients in whom two or more access attempts were performed was lower in DTI (7.8%) than in V (12.3%) (p > .05). We concluded that DTI is at least as safe as V, regarding the risk of suffering complications arising from access into the abdominal cavity. DTI has advantages with regard to V, such as: the shorter duration of access manoeuvres or the lesser number of unsuccessful entry or insufflation attempts. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? There are few international publications comparing DTI and V. When we conducted a search in PubMed for the terms 'Veress needle and direct trocar insertion', 51 publications were obtained. When we increased the restriction and added the terms 'laparoscopic entry and laparoscopy complications', 27 publications were obtained; thus, the uniqueness of our study. What do the results of this study add? We present a 3-year observational prospective study of cohorts that included 600 patients. The aim of this study was to determine that in laparoscopic gynaecological surgery, DTI is an access method to the abdominal cavity at least as safe as V, with respect to the risk of complications. On the other hand, DTI has some advantages such as the shorter duration of access manoeuvres or the lower number of failed entry attempts. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Given the limited number of publications that compared both techniques, our study indicates that DTI can be a safe alternative for access to abdominal cavity in gynaecological surgery, compared to the traditional V.