• S Spadaro, D S Karbing, T Mauri, E Marangoni, F Mojoli, G Valpiani, C Carrieri, R Ragazzi, M Verri, S E Rees, and C A Volta.
• Department of Morphology, Experimental Medicine and Surgery, Section of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Arcispedale Sant'Anna, University of Ferrara, Aldo 8, Aldo Moro, Ferrara 44121, Italy savinospadaro@gmail.com.
• Br J Anaesth. 2016 Jun 1; 116 (6): 855-61.

BackgroundGeneral anaesthesia decreases pulmonary compliance and increases pulmonary shunt due to the development of atelectasis. The presence of capnoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery may further decrease functional residual capacity, promoting an increased amount of atelectasis compared with laparotomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in both types of surgery and to investigate whether higher levels of PEEP should be used during laparoscopic surgery.MethodsThis prospective observational study included 52 patients undergoing either laparotomy or laparoscopic surgery. Three levels of PEEP were applied in random order: (1) zero (ZEEP), (2) 5 cmH2O and (3) 10 cmH2O. Pulmonary shunt and ventilation/perfusion mismatch were assessed by the automatic lung parameter estimator system.ResultsPulmonary shunt was similar in both groups. However, in laparotomy, a PEEP of 5 cmH2O significantly decreased shunt when compared with ZEEP (12 vs 6%; P=0.001), with additional PEEP having no further effect. In laparoscopic surgery, a significant reduction in shunt (13 vs 6%; P=0.001) was obtained only at a PEEP of 10 cmH2O. Although laparoscopic surgery was associated with a lower pulmonary compliance, increasing levels of PEEP were able to ameliorate it in both groups.ConclusionBoth surgeries have similar negative effects on pulmonary shunt, while the presence of capnoperitoneum reduced only the pulmonary compliance. It appears that a more aggressive PEEP level is required to reduce shunt and to maximize compliance in case of laparoscopic surgery.© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

28 keywords...

hide…