Laparoscopic Trocars: Marketed Versus True Dimensions-A Descriptive Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To establish true dimensions of single-use laparoscopic trocars compared with marketed dimensions, calculate corresponding incision sizes, examine what trocar size categories are based on, and outline accessibility of information regarding true dimensions. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: Laparoscopic disposable trocars available in North America and Europe are marketed in several distinct categories. In practice, trocars in the same-size category exhibit different functionality (ability to introduce instruments/needles and retrieve specimens) and warrant different incision lengths. PATIENTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: True dimensions for 125 trocars (bladeless, optical, and balloon) were obtained from 9 vendors covering 8 marketed size categories (3-, 3.5-, 5-, 8-, 10-, 11-, 12-, and 15-mm trocars). On average, true inner cannula diameter was 0.92 mm wider (SD, 0.41 mm; range, 0-2.4 mm) than the marketed size category, with the widest range in the 5 mm category. For 5-mm trocars, mean true inner diameter was 6.1 mm (SD, 0.45; range, 5.5-7.4) and true outer diameter 8.3 mm (SD, 0.71; range, 8.0-10.7). For 12-mm trocars, mean true inner diameter was 13.0 mm (SD, 0.21; range, 12-13.3) and outer diameter 15.3 mm (SD, 0.48; range, 14.4-16.8). Five-mm trocars necessitate a mean incision size of 13.0 mm (SD, 1.1; range, 12.1-16.8) and 12-mm trocars a mean incision of 24.0 mm (SD, 0.75; range, 22.6-26.4). No vendors stated actual diameters on company website or catalog. In one instance the Instructions For Use document contained the true inner diameter. CONCLUSION: Trocar size categories give a false sense of standardization when in actuality there are considerable within-category differences in both inner and outer diameters, corresponding to differences in functionality and required incision sizes. There is no universally applied definition for trocar size categories. Accessibility of information on true dimensions is limited.

Enhanced recovery after surgery in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery surgical patients: one size fits all?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs aim to expedite functional recovery and improve surgical outcomes without increasing complications or cost. First championed by colorectal surgeons, ERAS protocols are now widely utilized among surgical subspecialties. The present review focuses on use of ERAS pathways in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) and risk factors for suboptimal outcomes in this population. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies across multiple fields has shown benefit to adoption of ERAS protocols. However, lack of protocol standardization among institutions, implementation of interventions as a bundle, varied compliance, and lack of study randomization collectively obscure generalizability of findings from such studies. Emerging data in fact suggest benefits may not translate equally across all populations, cautioning against indiscriminate application of protocols to all surgeries or patients. Thus applicability of ERAS protocols to the MIGS population merits close examination. SUMMARY: ERAS protocols improve postoperative outcomes, satisfaction, and cost of care for most patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. However, modifications to typical ERAS protocols may be beneficial to certain subsets of patients including patients with chronic pelvic pain, opiate dependence, or psychiatric disorders. Identification of risk factors for admission or increased hospital stay may help guide protocol modifications for at-risk groups within the MIGS population.