Comparison of intraocular pressure during laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) versus transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair and transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair are standard laparoscopic procedures for inguinal hernia repair. Some evidence has shown that pneumoperitoneum can cause an increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) during surgery. This study aimed to compare intraoperative IOP following extraperitoneal CO2 insufflation with the TEP approach and intraperitoneal CO2 insufflation with the TAPP approach. METHODS: This study is a prospective cohort study. Patients who had inguinal hernias suitable for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair were assigned to undergo the TEP or TAPP approach. We measured preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative IOP. The IOP of the TEP and TAPP groups was evaluated using a t test. The relations between peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) were estimated using ANOVA. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the factors associated with IOP. RESULTS: There were 50 patients in this study (TEP group n = 25, TAPP group n = 25). The change in intraoperative IOP from the preoperative measurement to the measurement after CO2 insufflation was not statistically significant in either the TEP or TAPP group (p value = 0.357). There was no significant difference in intraoperative IOP change between the TEP and TAPP groups. Intraoperative MAP and PIP were related to IOP, but intraoperative EtCO2 was not. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant intraoperative IOP change during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Both the TEP and TAPP techniques can be performed safely without increasing intraoperative IOP.

Revision Procedures After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding: Comparison of Efficacy and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was one of the commonly performed bariatric operations; however, it carries a high revision rate. The aim of the present study was to report the long-term outcomes of LAGB and compare the outcomes between the different revision procedures. METHODS: All patients who underwent LAGB in a large bariatric center in Asia between May 2002 and April 2011 were included. Interval between primary LAGB to the revision operation, the reason and type of revision surgery were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 275 consecutive patients were included. All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically with no major complications. The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at 10-year follow-up was 45%. In this study, 53 patients (19.3%) had revision surgery, including with 26 single anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (R-LSAGB) (49%), 17 sleeve gastrectomy (R-LSG) (32.1%), 9 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-LRYGB) (17%), and 1 other procedure (1.9%). A major complication occurred in 6 patients (11.3%). All of the follow-up patients with revision surgeries had %EWL > 50% at the 2-year follow-up. R-LSAGB patients achieved better weight loss than those who underwent R-LSG and R-LRYGB (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term result for weight loss after LAGB is unsatisfactory. The revision of failed LAGB to other bariatric surgeries is safe and can be performed in one stage with a low complication rate. Patients who underwent R-LSAGB had better weight loss results than the R-LSG or R-LRYGB patients.