Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/18462
Title: Laparoscopic lens fogging: solving a common surgical problem in standard and robotic laparoscopes via a scientific model
Austin Authors: Manning, Todd G ;Papa, Nathan;Perera, Marlon ;McGrath, Shannon ;Christidis, Daniel;Khan, Munad;O'Beirne, Richard;Campbell, Nicholas;Bolton, Damien M ;Lawrentschuk, Nathan
Affiliation: Young Urology Researchers Organisation (YURO), Melbourne, Australia
Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Engineering (Chemical), University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Issue Date: Mar-2018
metadata.dc.date: 2017-08-08
Publication information: Surgical endoscopy 2018; 32(3): 1600-1606
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic lens fogging (LLF) hampers vision and impedes operative efficiency. Attempts to reduce LLF have led to the development of various anti-fogging fluids and warming devices. Limited literature exists directly comparing these techniques. We constructed a model peritoneum to simulate LLF and to compare the efficacy of various anti-fogging techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intraperitoneal space was simulated using a suction bag suspended within an 8 L container of water. LLF was induced by varying the temperature and humidity within the model peritoneum. Various anti-fogging techniques were assessed including scope warmers, FREDTM, ResoclearTM, chlorhexidine, betadine and immersion in heated saline. These products were trialled with and without the use of a disposable scope warmer. Vision scores were evaluated by the same investigator for all tests and rated according to a predetermined scale. Fogging was assessed for each product or technique 30 times and a mean vision rating was recorded. RESULTS: All products tested imparted some benefit, but FREDTM performed better than all other techniques. Betadine and ResoclearTM performed no better than the use of a scope warmer alone. Immersion in saline prior to insertion resulted in decreased vision ratings. The robotic scope did not result in LLF within the model. CONCLUSIONS: In standard laparoscopes, the most superior preventative measure was FREDTM utilised on a pre-warmed scope. Despite improvements in LLF with other products FREDTM was better than all other techniques. The robotic laparoscope performed superiorly regarding LLF compared to standard laparoscope.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/18462
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5772-x
ORCID: 0000-0001-8553-5618
0000-0002-4140-1500
0000-0002-5145-6783
0000-0001-5609-3769
0000-0002-3188-1803
0000-0002-1138-6389
0000-0003-2951-3726
Journal: Surgical endoscopy
PubMed URL: 28791559
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: Fogging
Laparoscopic equipment
Laparoscopic lens fogging
Laparoscopic surgery
Robotic surgery
Surgery
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

10
checked on Jan 27, 2023

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.