Low Pressure Pneumoperitoneum Using AirSeal® for Reduction in Postoperative Shoulder Pain Following Robot Assisted Hiatal Hernia Repair
NCT ID: NCT06737068
Last Updated: 2024-12-17
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
120 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-01-01
2027-01-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
PREVENTION
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Low Pressure Pneumoperitoneum (8-10 mmHg)
Elective robot assisted hiatal hernia repair with pneumoperitoneum pressures of 8-10 mmHg throughout the case
Low pressure pneumoperitoneum (8-10mmHg) with AirSeal device
Elective robot assisted hiatal hernia repair with low pressure pneumoperitoneum (8-10mmHg) with AirSeal device
Standard Pressure Pneumoperitoneum (13-15 mmHg)
Elective robot assisted hiatal hernia repair with pneumoperitoneum pressures of 13-15 mmHg throughout the case
Standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (13- 15 mmHg) with AirSeal device
Elective robot assisted hiatal hernia repair with standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (13- 15 mmHg) with AirSeal device
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Low pressure pneumoperitoneum (8-10mmHg) with AirSeal device
Elective robot assisted hiatal hernia repair with low pressure pneumoperitoneum (8-10mmHg) with AirSeal device
Standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (13- 15 mmHg) with AirSeal device
Elective robot assisted hiatal hernia repair with standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (13- 15 mmHg) with AirSeal device
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
* conversion to open surgery
* BMI \> 40
* history of abdominoplasty
* history of chronic pain and/or opioid dependence
* history of COPD and/or supplemental oxygen use
* pregnant patients
* incarcerated patients
* patient refusal
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Riverside University Health System Medical Center
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Riverside University Health System
Moreno Valley, California, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Institutional Review Board Manager
Role: primary
Marcos Michelotti, MD
Role: backup
Lan-Anh A Nguyen, MD
Role: backup
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Luketina R, Luketina TLH, Antoniou SA, Kohler G, Konneker S, Manzenreiter L, Wundsam H, Koch OO, Knauer M, Emmanuel K. Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO2 pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal(R). Surg Endosc. 2021 Jul;35(7):3670-3678. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07846-4. Epub 2020 Aug 7.
Buda A, Di Martino G, Borghese M, Restaino S, Surace A, Puppo A, Paracchini S, Ferrari D, Perotto S, Novelli A, De Ponti E, Borghi C, Fanfani F, Fruscio R. Low-Pressure Laparoscopy Using the AirSeal System versus Standard Insufflation in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study (ARIEL Study). Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Mar 14;10(3):531. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10030531.
Yasir M, Mehta KS, Banday VH, Aiman A, Masood I, Iqbal B. Evaluation of post operative shoulder tip pain in low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgeon. 2012 Apr;10(2):71-4. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2011.02.003. Epub 2011 Mar 21.
Wallace DH, Serpell MG, Baxter JN, O'Dwyer PJ. Randomized trial of different insufflation pressures for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1997 Apr;84(4):455-8.
Topcu HO, Cavkaytar S, Kokanali K, Guzel AI, Islimye M, Doganay M. A prospective randomized trial of postoperative pain following different insufflation pressures during gynecologic laparoscopy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Nov;182:81-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.09.003. Epub 2014 Sep 16.
Sroussi J, Elies A, Rigouzzo A, Louvet N, Mezzadri M, Fazel A, Benifla JL. Low pressure gynecological laparoscopy (7mmHg) with AirSeal(R) System versus a standard insufflation (15mmHg): A pilot study in 60 patients. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017 Feb;46(2):155-158. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2016.09.003. Epub 2017 Jan 30.
Saway JP, McCaul M, Mulekar MS, McMahon DP, Richards WO. Review of Outcomes of Low Verses Standard Pressure Pneumoperitoneum in Laparoscopic Surgery. Am Surg. 2022 Aug;88(8):1832-1837. doi: 10.1177/00031348221084956. Epub 2022 Apr 20.
Sarli L, Costi R, Sansebastiano G, Trivelli M, Roncoroni L. Prospective randomized trial of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum for reduction of shoulder-tip pain following laparoscopy. Br J Surg. 2000 Sep;87(9):1161-5. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01507.x.
Joshipura VP, Haribhakti SP, Patel NR, Naik RP, Soni HN, Patel B, Bhavsar MS, Narwaria MB, Thakker R. A prospective randomized, controlled study comparing low pressure versus high pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009 Jun;19(3):234-40. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181a97012.
Hua J, Gong J, Yao L, Zhou B, Song Z. Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2014 Jul;208(1):143-50. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.09.027. Epub 2014 Jan 16.
Gurusamy KS, Vaughan J, Davidson BR. Low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 18;2014(3):CD006930. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006930.pub3.
Foley CE, Ryan E, Huang JQ. Less is more: clinical impact of decreasing pneumoperitoneum pressures during robotic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2021 Apr;15(2):299-307. doi: 10.1007/s11701-020-01104-4. Epub 2020 Jun 22.
O'Connor SC, Mallard M, Desai SS, Couto F, Gottlieb M, Ewing A, Cobb WS, Carbonell AM, Warren JA. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Approach to Hiatal Hernia Repair: Results After 7 Years of Robotic Experience. Am Surg. 2020 Sep;86(9):1083-1087. doi: 10.1177/0003134820943547. Epub 2020 Aug 18.
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2068123-1
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id