Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 141226

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : January | Volume : 18 | Issue : 1 | Page : UC38 - UC42 Full Version

Comparative Analysis of Haemodynamic and Capnographic Changes in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Open Cholecystectomy: A Randomised Clinical Study


Published: January 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/67873.18965
Kaveri Das, Sudipa Paul, Pritanu Deb Baruah, Gunabhi Ram Das, Avishek Dutta Choudhury

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, Assam, India. 2. Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Tinsukia Medical College and Hospital, Tinsukia, Assam, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, Assam, India. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, Assam, India. 5. Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Dhubri Medical College and Hospital, Dhubri, Assam, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Kaveri Das,
Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh-786002, Assam, India.
E-mail: drkaveridas@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is now preferred over the open procedure due to advantages such as reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stays. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential for increased Intra-abdominal Pressure (IAP) during laparoscopic procedures, which may impact haemodynamic stability and respiratory parameters. However, there is a lack of comprehensive analysis directly comparing both surgical approaches from both haemodynamic and capnographic perspectives.

Aim: To compare the haemodynamic and capnographic changes between laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy.

Materials and Methods: This randomised clinical study was conducted at Department of Anaesthesiology, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, Assam, India from May 2021 to June 2022. The study included 300 patients scheduled for cholecystectomy, divided into two groups: Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) Group I (n=150) and Open Cholecystectomy (OC) Group II (n=150). Haemodynamic parameters, including Pulse Rate (PR), Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), and Oxygen Saturation (SpO2), were recorded. Capnographic parameters, such as End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide (EtCO2) levels, were also measured at regular intervals. Data analysis was performed using the student’s t-test and Chi-square test with Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0 software and Microsoft excel.

Results: There were no significant differences in age, body weight, and sex distribution between Group I and Group II. However, significant differences were observed in PR and SBP at 15 minutes (PR: 101.46 and 95.86; SBP: 148.57 and 140.97), 30 minutes (PR: 104.52 and 99.82; SBP: 141.28 and 136.07), and 45 minutes (PR: 102.52 and 97.70; SBP: 140.59 and 133.95) (p-value <0.01). Highly significant differences were observed in MAP and EtCO2 postinsufflation at 15 minutes (MAP: 118.38 and 108.61; EtCO2: 36.48 and 33.89), 30 minutes (MAP: 111.11 and 106.01; EtCO2: 41.02 and 36.15), 45 minutes (MAP: 110.73 and 103.48; EtCO2: 42.65 and 38.36), and 60 minutes (MAP: 106.08 and 101.45; EtCO2: 41.10 and 38.21) (p-value <0.01). DBP showed high significance at 15 minutes (103.21 and 93.23), 30 minutes (96.74 and 92.57), and 60 minutes (93.14 and 86.92) (p-value <0.01), and significant (p-value=0.01) at 45 minutes (95.53 and 87.59). Oxygen saturation showed significance (p-value <0.05) at 15 minutes (99.93 and 100).

Conclusion: The present study demonstrated a significant increase in both haemodynamic and capnographic parameters, even in American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) Grade-I and Grade-II patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to the open surgical technique. These findings emphasise the need for careful monitoring during laparoscopic procedures.

Keywords

Blood pressure, Carbon dioxide, Heart rate, Oxygen saturation, Postinsufflation

Cholecystectomy is the surgical elimination of the gallbladder and is one of the most commonly performed surgeries worldwide. It can be performed using both open and laparoscopic techniques. In open cholecystectomy, the removal of the gallbladder is carried out through a single large incision, typically made in the right upper quadrant (1). On the other hand, in the laparoscopic method, the creation of pneumoperitoneum is required, along with the insertion of a video camera and surgical instruments through multiple small incisions made in the abdomen.

The creation of pneumoperitoneum is the first and most critical step in any laparoscopic procedure due to the significant risk of bladder and bowel injury (2). Hence, understanding the physiological changes resulting from pneumoperitoneum is crucial.

The increase in intravascular pressure caused by pneumoperitoneum leads to the compression of the heart and major blood vessels, resulting in decreased blood flow to the heart and an increase in Systemic Vascular Resistance (SVR). These changes further affect blood pressure, MAP, and PR. The restriction of diaphragm movement reduces lung expansion and lung compliance, leading to a decrease in total lung capacity and functional residual capacity. Moreover, increased intra-abdominal pressure can hinder the perfusion of abdominal organs and cause oliguria due to reduced blood flow to the kidneys (3).

However, the formation of pneumoperitoneum is not without its drawbacks, including detrimental effects on respiratory, cardiovascular, acid-base physiology, and stress response. When pneumoperitoneum is induced, there is an instantaneous rise in MAP and SVR, suggesting the involvement of the sympathetic nervous system (4). These haemodynamic responses are attributed to increased release of catecholamines, vasopressin, or both (5),(6). EtCO2 partial pressure monitoring is increasingly used during anaesthesia as an indirect measure of arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2). Therefore, the relationship between these two variables is of considerable interest (7).

Previous studies (8),(9),(10),(11) have individually explored the haemodynamic or capnographic changes associated with laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy. However, a comprehensive analysis directly comparing both approaches is scarce, especially in the northeastern part of India. Some studies have reported advantages of laparoscopy, such as reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stays. Conversely, concerns have been raised regarding the potential for increased intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopic procedures, which may impact haemodynamic stability and respiratory parameters (8),(9),(10),(11). The existing literature requires more in-depth research to directly compare the two surgical techniques, considering both haemodynamic and capnographic perspectives.

Panda BK et al., (12), Kumar A et al., (13), Chopra G et al., (14), and Banu MS et al., (15) evaluated 60 adults each, allocating them into open and laparoscopic surgery groups (30:30). Since both laparoscopic and open cholecystectomies are routine procedures at the present institute, and there is a paucity of previous research on this subject in this region, aimed to analyse and compare 300 adults based on changes in haemodynamic and capnographic parameters like PR, SBP, DBP, MAP, SpO2 and EtCO2.

Material and Methods

This randomised clinical study was conducted over a period of one year, from May 2021 to June 2022, at Department of Anaesthesiology, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, Assam, India. Informed written consent was obtained from the patients who willingly agreed to participate. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, with approval no. (AMC/EC/ PG 5686) dated 24-07-2020.

Sample size calculation: The sample size was estimated based on an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 80%, resulting in a calculated sample size of 150 for each group, totaling 300.

Patients were allocated into two groups. Group I (n=150) underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and Group II underwent open cholecystectomy based on the list received from the Surgery Department. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT) has been shown in (Table/Fig 1).

Inclusion criteria: A total of 300 patients between the ages of 18 and 60, of either sex, with a Body Mass Index (BMI) <30 kg/m2, and ASA Grade-I and II were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients’ refusal, ASA ≥3, BMI ≥30; those with cardiorespiratory illness, renal dysfunction, metabolic or any uncontrolled systemic illness; conditions in which laparoscopic cholecystectomy may need to be converted into open cholecystectomy; those with bleeding disorders; and pregnant women were excluded from the study.

Study Procedure

All patients underwent a complete preanaesthetic evaluation in their respective wards the day before the operation. After obtaining the patient’s complete medical history, including details of any previous operations, drug allergies, or prolonged medical treatment, a thorough clinical examination was conducted. The appropriate laboratory studies were then carried out based on the patient’s clinical profile and the anticipated surgery.

Technique of anaesthesia: In the preoperative room, haemodynamic parameters like HR, MAP, SBP, DBP, PR, and SpO2 were measured. Cannulation was performed, and Ringer’s lactate infusion was initiated. ASA monitors, including blood pressure, Electrocardiogram (ECG), pulse oximeter, temperature probe, and EtCO2, were attached, and monitoring continued throughout the operation. Premedication was administered intravenously, including Inj. Glycopyrrolate 4 μg/kg, Inj. Fentanyl 2 μg/kg, Inj. Pantoprazole 40 mg, Inj. Ondansetron 0.1 mg/kg, and Inj. Midazolam 1 mg. After preoxygenation with 100% oxygen for three minutes, all patients were induced with intravenous propofol (2 mg/kg), and neuromuscular blockade was achieved with Inj. Succinylcholine 1.5 mg/kg. Laryngoscopy was performed using a Macintosh laryngoscope blade, and endotracheal intubation was conducted. Inj. Atracurium loading dose (0.5 mg/kg) was administered, and a Ryle’s tube was inserted. A capnograph was attached to the endotracheal tube, and EtCO2 was recorded prior to CO2 insufflation in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and prior to incision in open cholecystectomy. Anaesthesia was maintained using oxygen, N2O, and sevoflurane inhalation at titrated doses. Intermittent doses of Inj. Atracurium (0.1 mg/kg) were administered, and Inj. Paracetamol was given for intraoperative analgesia. The rate of CO2 insufflation was 1 to 2 litres/min, and the maximum allowed intra-abdominal pressure was 15 mmHg. The patient was positioned in a head-up position with a right-side-up tilt of 15 degrees, and the intra-abdominal pressure was maintained at 15 mmHg. The primary outcomes of interest were the comparison of changes in MAP, PR, EtCO2 and SpO2 between the two groups. These parameters were continuously monitored and recorded every 15 minutes for one hour, and then every 30 minutes until the end of the procedure. All patients were reversed using Inj. Neostigmine (0.05 mg/kg) and Inj. Glycopyrrolate (0.01 mg/kg) intravenously. After patients were awake and their vital parameters were within an acceptable range, Ryle’s tube suction was performed and removed, and patients were extubated after oropharyngeal suction. In the postoperative period, all vital parameters were recorded for up to two hours. This study aimed to determine the haemodynamic and capnographic parameters like PR, SBP, DBP, MAP, EtCO2, and SpO2 (oxygen saturation), in laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy.

Statistical Analysis

The data were analysed with the help of the student’s t-test and Chi-square test, using SPSS software version 21.0 and Microsoft excel.

Results

Demographic data: There were no statistically significant differences in age and body weight (p-value >0.05) (Table/Fig 2). There was no significant difference in the distribution of sex between Group I and Group II (p-value >0.05, Chi-square test) (Table/Fig 2).

Pulse Rate (PR): In 15, 30, and 45 minutes perioperatively, Group I patients showed a greater rise in PR compared to Group II patients after carbon dioxide insufflation, and the differences between the groups were highly significant (p-value <0.01, Student’s t-test). At 60 minutes, the difference was statistically significant (p<0.05) (Table/Fig 3).

Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): In 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes intraoperatively, Group I patients showed a greater rise in SBP compared to Group II patients, and the differences between the groups were statistically highly significant (p-value <0.01, Student’s t-test) (Table/Fig 4).

Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): In 15, 30, and 60 minutes intraoperatively, Group I patients showed a greater rise in DBP compared to Group II patients, and the differences between the groups were statistically highly significant (p-value <0.01, Student’s t-test). At 45 minutes, the difference was significant (Table/Fig 5).

MAP: In 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes intraoperatively, Group I patients showed a greater rise in MAP post-insufflation compared to Group II patients, and the differences between the groups were statistically highly significant (p-value <0.01, Student’s t-test) (Table/Fig 6).

End-Tidal CO2 (EtCO2): Perioperatively, after insufflation at 15, 30, 45, and 60-minute intervals, there was a greater rise of EtCO2 in Group I patients with a minimum rise in Group II patients, and the differences between the two groups were statistically highly significant (p-value <0.01) (Table/Fig 7).

Oxygen Saturation (SpO2): Preoperatively, the mean SpO2 of both groups was 100%, but there was a significant difference between the two groups at 15 minutes post-carbon dioxide insufflation (p-value <0.05). At 30, 45, and 60 minutes, SpO2 was maintained in the normal range in both groups (Table/Fig 8).

At two hours postoperative, there was a decrease in all the parameters toward the preoperative values.

Discussion

The present study aimed to compare the haemodynamic and capnographic changes between two groups undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Group I) and open cholecystectomy (Group II), respectively, using standard ASA monitors such as Non Invasive Blood Pressure (NIBP), ECG, pulse oximeter, and capnography.

(Table/Fig 9) presents a comparison of haemodynamic parameters from the current study and similar studies (12),(13),(14),(15).

Pulse Rate (PR): The comparison of PR revealed a statistically highly significant rise in Group I (p<0.0001) at 15, 30, 45 minutes, and a significant rise at 60 minutes (p-value was 0.04, i.e., p<0.05) perioperatively after pneumoperitoneum creation. Hypercarbia leads to widespread sympathetic stimulation, resulting in tachycardia and vasoconstriction, counteracting the direct vasodilatory effect of carbon dioxide (16).

SBP , DBP , and MAP: A highly significant rise in SBP was observed in Group I at 15, 30, 45, and subsequently at 60 minutes after CO2 insufflation, caused by increased systemic and pulmonary vascular resistance and reduction of cardiac index when laparoscopy is performed at approximately 15 mmHg with head-up tilt. Significant rise in DBP was noted in Group I at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes intraoperatively after insufflation compared to Group II (open cholecystectomy). Similar observations were made by Chopra G et al., who found a highly significant rise at 30 and 40 minutes in both SBP and DBP (14). Singh SP et al., showed that the DBP of patients in Group B (low pressure, <8 mmHg pneumoperitoneum) was higher than that of Group A (standard pressure, 12-14 mmHg pneumoperitoneum) at 30, 40, and 50 minutes after induction, while in the rest of the observation periods, the DBP of Group A was higher than that of Group B (8).

MAP also demonstrated a statistically significant rise in Group I at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes. This finding is supported by Kumar A et al., where a highly significant rise was observed in Group I (laparoscopic) compared to Group II (open) at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes (13). Panda BK et al., found a highly significant rise in Group I at 30 and 40 minutes after intubation compared to an insignificant rise in MAP in Group II (12). The rise in arterial blood pressure is caused by neurohumoural responses due to the activation of the Renin-angiotensin-Aldosterone System (RAAS), increased intra-abdominal pressure, and increased systemic and pulmonary vascular resistances. Therefore, the patient’s cardiopulmonary status should be adequate to handle the stress response during pneumoperitoneum creation (17),(18).

The observed haemodynamic variations in Group I individuals were not clinically concerning, and no therapies were necessary. Desufflation helped reduce the alterations in parameters, which returned to practically baseline within the first two hours following surgery. No patients in the present study experienced any dangerous arrhythmias. Peritoneal insufflation at IAPs greater than 10 mmHg significantly alters haemodynamic parameters (19). Concrete steps should be taken to avoid unintended and abrupt haemodynamic changes.

In the pathogenesis of pneumoperitoneum, intra-abdominal pressure is an extremely significant factor (8),(10). In the present study, IAP was maintained at 15 mmHg during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Group I patients). During insufflation, the patients were positioned with their right-side up and their head tilted up 15 degrees. Group I patients experienced significant haemodynamic changes due to elevated IAP, patient positioning, and CO2 absorption. Galizia G et al., in their investigation of haemodynamic alterations after open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, concluded that CO2 pneumoperitoneum significantly altered heart performance (20).

In the current study, a highly significant rise in EtCO2 levels was observed in Group I patients at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after CO2 insufflation, but it did not exceed the upper limit of normal. Panda BK et al., in their comparison of EtCO2 between both groups, found a statistically significant increase in EtCO2 in the laparoscopic group starting from t=20 minutes after intubation until 10 minutes before extubation (12). Kumar A et al., also found a highly significant (p-value <0.01) rise in EtCO2 in Group I compared to Group II (13). Singh SP et al., observed that the mean EtCO2 of patients in Group-B, where low pressure (<8 mmHg) pneumoperitoneum was used, was higher than that of Group-A (standard pressure 12-14 mmHg) at all periods except 30 minutes after induction. The differences in EtCO2 levels between patients in Group-A and Group-B were statistically significant at all intervals after 30 minutes of induction (i.e., 30 minutes, 40 minutes, 50 minutes, 60 minutes, and 2 hours after induction) (8). Umar A et al., found that in all groups under their study, EtCO2 increased immediately after insufflation and continued to rise with the increasing duration of CO2 insufflation until exsufflation (10). Kachru N and Saha U observed a significant rise in EtCO2 in the laparoscopic group at 30 minutes after insufflation (21).

Respiratory changes during laparoscopic procedures are important factors that can cause an increase in PaCO2, leading to arterial and tissue acidosis. Increased intra-abdominal pressure produced by pneumoperitoneum impairs ventilation. The elevation of the diaphragm results in decreased Functional Residual Capacity (FRC), Total Lung Capacity (TLC), and pulmonary compliance (22). Capnometry and capnography help prevent hypercarbia, and EtCO2 generally provides reliable information about PaCO2 during laparoscopy (23).

In the present study, capnography was used to monitor EtCO2, and minute volume was adjusted during controlled ventilation to keep EtCO2 within the normal range. However, EtCO2 was higher in Group I patients than in Group II at different time periods during the operation.

In the current study, a significant difference was observed between the two groups at 15 minutes post-carbon dioxide insufflation, with a p-value <0.05. This dip in Group I at 15 minutes immediately after insufflation supports the fact that there are differences in respiratory mechanics and the emergence of ventilation and perfusion imbalances due to increased intra-abdominal pressure and CO2 insufflation. Panda BK et al., found that there was a decrease in SpO2 in the laparoscopic group during the intraoperative period, specifically from t=20 minutes after intubation to t=80 minutes, and the p-values during this period were significant (12).

Limitation(s)

As both ASA Grade-I and II patients were included in the present study, NIBP assessment was conducted instead of invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring. However, postoperative EtCO2 monitoring after two hours was not performed due to the unavailability of capnographic monitors in the postoperative wards.

Conclusion

The current research demonstrated a notable increase in key parameters, such as PR, SBP, DBP, MAP, and EtCO2, even in ASA Grade-I and Grade-II patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to the open surgical technique. There were significant differences in SpO2 between the two groups at 15 minutes post carbon dioxide insufflation. The present study emphasises the need for careful monitoring during these common surgical procedures, despite the postoperative parameters returning to baseline levels within two hours.

References

1.
Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Spangenberger W, Dietrich A, Lefering R. Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Cholecystectomy study group. Br J Surg. 1991;78(2):150-54. Doi: 10.1002/ bjs.1800780207. PMID: 1826622. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Krishnakumar S, Tambe P. Entry complications in laparoscopic surgery. J Gynecol Endosc Surg. 2009;1(1):04-11. Doi: 10.4103/0974-1216.51902. PMID: 22442503. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Hasukić S, Mesić D, Dizdarević E, Keser D, Hadziselimović S, Bazardzanović M. Pulmonary function after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(1):163-65. Doi: 10.1007/s00464-001-0060-0. PMID: 11961630. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Larsen JF, Svendsen FM, Pedersen V. Randomized clinical trial of the effect of pneumoperitoneum on cardiac function and haemodynamics during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 2004;91(7):848-54. Doi: 10.1002/ bjs.4573. PMID: 15227690. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Myre K, Rostrup M, Buanes T, Stokland O. Plasma catecholamines and haemodynamic changes during pneumoperitoneum. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1998;42(3):343-47. Doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1998.tb04927.x. PMID: 9542563. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Mann C, Boccara G, Pouzeratte Y, Eliet J, Serradel-Le Gal C, Vergnes C, et al. The relationship among carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum, vasopressin release, and hemodynamic changes. Anesth Analg. 1999;89(2):278-83. Doi: 10.1097/00000539-199908000-00003. PMID: 10439730. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
McMahon AJ, Baxter JN, Kenny G, O’Dwyer PJ. Ventilatory and blood gas changes during laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1993;80(10):1252-54. Doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800801010. PMID: 8242290. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Singh SP, Verma S, Pandey A, Shukla U, Gupta V, Singh P, et al. Comparative evaluation of hemodynamic and capnographic changes in low pressure versus normal pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Int Surg J. 2017;4(8):2642-47. Doi: 10.18203/2349-2902.isj20173186. [crossref]
9.
Hasukic S. CO 2-pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery: Pathophysiologic effects and clinical significance. WJOLS. 2014;7(1):33-40. Doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1214. [crossref]
10.
Umar A, Mehta KS, Mehta N. Evaluation of hemodynamic changes using different intra-abdominal pressures for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Indian J Surg. 2013;75(4):284-89. Doi: 10.1007/s12262-012-0484-x. PMID: 24426454. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Sapehia V. Evaluation of hemodynamic changes during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with moderate to severe left ventricular dysfunction: A prospective observational controlled study. MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology. 2022;21(3):157-61. Doi: 10.26611/101521316. [crossref]
12.
Panda BK, Ekka M, Rout S, Mohapatra S, Rajan A, Hasan A, et al. Evaluation of haemodynamic and capnographic changes in open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Int J Sci Res. 2021;10(1):58-60. Doi: 10.36106/ijsr/9119582. [crossref]
13.
Kumar A, Verma VK, Jha RK, Kumar R, Hussain M. Comparative evaluation of haemodynamic and capnographic changes in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy: Prospective, randomized clinical study. Journal of IGIMS. 2019;5(1):63-68.
14.
Chopra G, Singh D, Jindal P, Sharma U, Sharma J. Haemodynamic, end-tidal carbon dioxide, saturated pressure of oxygen and electrocardiogram changes in laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy: A comparative clinical evaluation. Internet J Anesthesiol. 2007;16(1):01-07. [crossref]
15.
Banu MS, Mondol MSH, Das RS, Ali MA, Shathi IJ, Khatun MH, et al. Haemodynamic consequences in immediate postoperative period in comparison between open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Dhaka Med Coll. 2021;28(2):184-89. Doi: 10.3329/jdmc.v28i2.51155. [crossref]
16.
Neudecker J, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E, Bergamaschi R, Bonjer HJ, Cuschieri A, et al. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery clinical practice guideline on the pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(7):1121-43. Doi: 10.1007/s00464-001-9166-7. PMID: 12015619. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Larsen JF, Svendsen FM, Pedersen V. Randomized clinical trial of the effect of pneumoperitoneum on cardiac function and haemodynamics during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 2004;91(7):848-54. Doi: 10.1002/bjs.4573. PMID: 15227690. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Gerges FJ, Kanazi GE, Jabbour-khoury SI. Anesthesia for laparoscopy: A review. J Clin Anesth. 2006;18(1):67-78. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2005.01.013. PMID: 16517337. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Safran DB, Orlando III R. Physiologic effects of pneumoperitoneum. Am J Surg. 1994;167(2):281-86. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Galizia G, Prizio G, Lieto E, Castellano P, Pelosio L, Imperatore V, et al. Hemodynamic and pulmonary changes during open, carbon dioxide neumoperitoneum, and abdominal wall-lifting cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(5):477-83. Doi: 10.1007/s004640000343. PMID: 11353965. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Kachru N, Saha U. A comparative evaluation of haemodynamic, blood gas and acid base changes in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy. Indian J Anaesth. 2001;45(4):275-78.
22.
Wahba RWM, Mamazza J. Ventilatory requirements during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Can J Anaesth. 1993;40(3):206-10. Doi: 10.1007/BF03037031. PMID: 8467541. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Nyarwaya JB, Mazoit JX, Samii K. Are pulse oximetry and end-tidal carbon dioxide tension monitoring reliable during laparoscopic surgery? Anaesthesia. 1994;49(9):775-78. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1994.tb04449.x, PMID 7978132.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/67873.18965

Date of Submission: Oct 07, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Nov 06, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Dec 19, 2023
Date of Publishing: Jan 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Oct 07, 2023
• Manual Googling: Nov 22, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Dec 16, 2023 (7%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com