Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32552782›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

The effect of low- versus normal-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic colorectal surgery on the early quality of recovery with perioperative care according to the enhanced recovery principles (RECOVER): study protocol for a randomized controlled study.

Kim I Albers, Fatih Polat, Ivo F Panhuizen, Marc M J Snoeck, Gert-Jan Scheffer, Hans D de Boer, Michiel C Warlé

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05530564 (Effect of Low-pressure Pneumoperitoneum on Pain and Inflammation in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05530564 nacompletednot on this map

Effect of Low-pressure Pneumoperitoneum on Pain and Inflammation in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of JordanRan2020 to 2021Enrolled100ConditionsPneumoperitoneum, Pain, Inflammatory ResponseArmslow-pressure pneumoperitoneum, standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kim I AlbersDepartment of Surgery and Anesthesiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Kim.Albers@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9770-0905
Fatih PolatDepartment of Surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ivo F PanhuizenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marc M J SnoeckDepartment of Anesthesiology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Gert-Jan SchefferDepartment of Anesthesiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hans D de BoerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Martini General Hospital, Van Swietenplein 1, 9728 NT, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Michiel C WarléDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLMartini Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

Merck Sharp and Dohme #55890
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing evidence for the use of lower insufflation pressures during laparoscopic surgery. Deep neuromuscular blockade allows for a safe reduction in intra-abdominal pressure without compromising the quality of the surgical field. While there is considerable evidence to support superior surgical conditions during deep neuromuscular blockade, there is only a limited amount of studies investigating patient outcomes. Moreover, results are not always consistent between studies and vary between different types of laparoscopic surgery. This study will investigate the effect of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum facilitated by deep NMB on quality of recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

methodsThe RECOVER study is a multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled trial consisting of 204 patients who will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to group A, low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (8 mmHg) facilitated by deep neuromuscular blockade (post tetanic count of 1-2), or group B, normal-pressure pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg) with moderate neuromuscular blockade (train-of-four response of 1-2). The primary outcome is quality of recovery on postoperative day 1, quantified by the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire. DISCUSSION: Few studies have investigated the effect of lower insufflation pressures facilitated by deep neuromuscular blockade on patient outcomes after laparoscopic colorectal procedures. This study will identify whether low pressure pneumoperitoneum and deep neuromuscular blockade will enhance recovery after colorectal laparoscopic surgery and, moreover, if this could be a valuable addition to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines.

trial registrationEudraCT 2018-001485-42. Registered on April 9, 2018. Clinicaltrials.govNCT03608436. Registered on July 30, 2018.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase IV as TopicColonDigestive System Surgical ProceduresDouble-Blind MethodHumansLaparoscopyMulticenter Studies as TopicNeuromuscular BlockadePerioperative CarePneumoperitoneum, ArtificialPostoperative ComplicationsPressureRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionRectumTime FactorsColorectalDeep neuromuscular blockIntra-abdominal pressureLaparoscopic surgeryLaparoscopyPneumoperitoneumQuality of recoveryRocuroniumSugammadex

Identifiers

PMID32552782
PMCPMC7301516
OpenAlexW3036737395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.