CClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT03306238LAPRESUpdated Dec 21, 2017

LAParoscopic Entry Technique in REnal Surgery

An interventional study of Open approach to port insertion and Closed approach to port insertion in Kidney Diseases, sponsored by The Adelaide and Meath Hospital, incorporating The National Children's Hospital. Status unknown at 1 site in Ireland. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-12-21.

Sponsored by The Adelaide and Meath Hospital, incorporating The National Children's Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Dec 2017), so the status shown — last known as Recruiting — may be out of date.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
300
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is a randomised controlled trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of two different port site entry techniques in laparoscopic renal surgery: open method (Hasson) and closed method (Veress). It will involve 300 adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic renal surgery in Tallaght hospital under two Consultant urologists.

Read the detailed description

Surgical specialties commonly using laparoscopic techniques like gynecology and general surgery have extensively compared the various available techniques of port insertion (1). There is very little known regarding the safest entry technique for the initial port in laparoscopic renal surgery. Results from other surgical specialties cannot simply be extrapolated to this type of laparoscopic surgery due to difference in entry site and patient position with renal surgery. Hence, this randomised controlled trial will be performed in a urological unit with two laparoscopic renal surgeons to compare two commonly used techniques of initial trocar insertion: the closed method and the open method.

Background Since its introduction in 1991 by Clayman, laparoscopic renal surgery has become very popular and is widely used for both benign and malignant renal operations such as radical, simple and partial nephrectomies, pyeloplasties, nephro-ureterectomies (2). The overall reported major and minor complication rate of laparoscopic renal surgery is 9.5% and 1.9% respectively (2). Initial entry by trocar insertion is the most hazardous part of the laparoscopic procedure. Opinion regarding the safest entry technique is divided. The two most commonly used techniques of port entry include open and closed (3). An open technique, as first described by Hasson, involves the peritoneum being cut down, followed by the insertion of a blunt trocar under direct visualisation, gas insufflation, and insertion of the laparoscope. One of the closed technique involves the insertion of a Veress needle (a needle equipped with a spring-loaded obturator) into the peritoneal cavity, followed by gas insufflation (act of blowing) and insertion of a trocar (a sharp, pointed instrument with a cannula used to enter the body cavity). Finally the laparoscope is passed through the trocar once the obturator is removed. Previous meta-analyses in laparoscopic surgery from gynaecological and general surgical operations have not been able to support one technique over the other due to insufficient evidence.to our knowledge (3), there are no randomised controlled trials comparing these two techniques in laparoscopic renal surgery. During laparoscopic renal surgery, the patient is placed in a lateral flank position with the table flexed. The initial port of entry can be either at the umbilicus or lateral to it. This position is unique to urological surgery and hence can have different implications to the initial trocar insertion technique.

The objective is to compare the open method (Hasson) and closed method (Veress) of laparoscopic port site entry in renal surgery

02

Conditions studied

  • Kidney Diseases

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • laparoscopy/ key-hole
  • renal surgery
  • open/hasson
  • closed/veress
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

    • Able to undergo a general anaesthetic

      • At least 18 years old
      • Willing and able to give AN INFORMED CONSENT

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • patient refusal obese patients BMI >40mg/m2 previous laparotomy
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
300 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Open/Hasson

    This group will undergo initial laparoscopic port insertion by the open or Hasson approach and then undergo the remaining laparoscopic surgery as usual

    Procedure: Open approach to port insertion

  • Active comparator
    Closed/ Veress

    This group will undergo initial laparoscopic port insertion by the closed or Veress approach and then undergo the remaining laparoscopic surgery as usual

    Procedure: Closed approach to port insertion

Interventions

  • ProcedureOpen approach to port insertion

    This involves the peritoneum being cut down, followed by the insertion of a blunt trocar under direct visualisation, gas insufflation, and insertion of the laparoscope

    Also known as: Hasson

  • ProcedureClosed approach to port insertion

    This involves the insertion of a Veress needle (a needle equipped with a spring-loaded obturator) into the peritoneal cavity, followed by gas insufflation (act of blowing) and insertion of a trocar (a sharp, pointed instrument with a cannula used to enter the body cavity).

    Also known as: Veress

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Complications

    Minor and major complications assessed

    Time frame: 48 hours

Secondary outcomes

  1. Time to insertion

    Record time taken to perform both approaches

    Time frame: 30 minutes

06

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Adelaide and Meath hospital incorporating the NAtional Children's hospital
    Dublin, 24, Ireland
    Recruiting
07

References and documents

Publications

  • Angioli R, Terranova C, De Cicco Nardone C, Cafa EV, Damiani P, Portuesi R, Muzii L, Plotti F, Zullo MA, Panici PB. A comparison of three different entry techniques in gynecological laparoscopic surgery: a randomized prospective trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Dec;171(2):339-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.09.012. Epub 2013 Sep 23. PubMed 24103531 ↗
  • Pareek G, Hedican SP, Gee JR, Bruskewitz RC, Nakada SY. Meta-analysis of the complications of laparoscopic renal surgery: comparison of procedures and techniques. J Urol. 2006 Apr;175(4):1208-13. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00639-7. PubMed 16515961 ↗
  • Ahmad G, O'Flynn H, Duffy JM, Phillips K, Watson A. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;(2):CD006583. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub3. PubMed 22336819 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03306238
Lead sponsor
The Adelaide and Meath Hospital, incorporating The National Children's Hospital
Responsible party
Arun Thomas (Principal investigator, The Adelaide and Meath Hospital, incorporating The National Children's Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Oct 11, 2017
Start date
Nov 1, 2017
Primary completion
Oct 1, 2019 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 31, 2019 (estimated)
Last update
Dec 21, 2017

Study contacts

Arun Z Thomas, MCh, FRCS
Contact
arun.z.thomas@gmail.com
0353879804873
Arun Z Thomas
principal investigator · AMNCH, Tallaght hospital, Dublin 24

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Dec 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion