Double-blind, prospective, randomized study of warmed, humidifield carbon dioxide insufflation vs standard carbon dioxide for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

David R. Farley, Susan M. Greenlee, Dirk R. Larson, Jeffrey R. Harrington, David W. Easter, Raymond J. Joehl, Thomas R. Huntington, Michael Schmidt, James G. Tyburski, Basil A. Pruitt, John C. Hendricks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

60 Scopus citations

Abstract

Hypothesis: Patients undergoing warmed, humidified carbon dioxide (CO 2) insufflation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy will (1) maintain a warmer intraoperative core temperature, (2) have their surgeon experience less fogging of the camera lens, and (3) have less postoperative pain than patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with standard Co2 insufflation. Design: A double-blind, prospective, randomized study comparing patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with standard CO2 insufflation vs those receiving warmed, humidified CO2 (Insuflow Filter Heater Hydrator; Lexion Medical, St Paul, Minn) was performed. Main variables included patient core temperature, postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, and camera lens fogging. Results: One hundred one blinded patients (69 women, 32 men) undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into 2 groups-52 receiving standard CO2 insufflation (group A) and 49 receiving warmed, humidified CO2 (group B). Mean patient intraoperative core temperature change (group A decreased by 0.03°C, group B increased by 0.29°C, P=.01) and mean abdominal pain (Likert scale, 0-10) at 14 days postoperatively (group A, 1.0; group B, 0.3; P=.02) were different, Other variables (camera lens fogging, early postoperative pain, narcotic requirements, recovery room stay, and return to normal activities) between groups were similar. Conclusion: While patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with warmed, humidified CO2 had several advantages that were statistically significant, no major clinically relevant differences between groups A and B were evident.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)739-744
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of Surgery
Volume139
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2004

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Double-blind, prospective, randomized study of warmed, humidifield carbon dioxide insufflation vs standard carbon dioxide for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Farley, D. R., Greenlee, S. M., Larson, D. R., Harrington, J. R., Easter, D. W., Joehl, R. J., Huntington, T. R., Schmidt, M., Tyburski, J. G., Pruitt, B. A., & Hendricks, J. C. (2004). Double-blind, prospective, randomized study of warmed, humidifield carbon dioxide insufflation vs standard carbon dioxide for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Archives of Surgery, 139(7), 739-744. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.139.7.739