The impact of intra-abdominal pressure on perioperative outcomes in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Abstract Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy involves using intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) to facilitate adequate surgical conditions. However, there is no consensus on optimal IAP levels to improve surgical outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to examine outcomes of low, standard, and high IAP among adults undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods An electronic database search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outcomes of low, standard, and high IAP among adults undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to conduct pairwise meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparisons of the levels of IAP assessed across trials. Results The SLR and NMA included 22 studies. Compared with standard IAP, on a scale of 0 (no pain at all) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), low IAP was associated with significantly lower overall pain scores at 24 h (mean difference [MD]: − 0.70; 95% credible interval [CrI]: − 1.26, − 0.13) and reduced risk of shoulder pain 24 h (odds ratio [OR] 0.24; 95% CrI 0.12, 0.48) and 72 h post-surgery (OR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.07, 0.65). Hospital stay was shorter with low IAP (MD: − 0.14 days; 95% CrI − 0.30, − 0.01). High IAP was not associated with a significant difference for these outcomes when compared with standard or low IAP. No significant differences were found between the IAP levels regarding need for conversion to open surgery; post-operative acute bleeding, pain at 72 h, nausea, and vomiting; and duration of surgery. Conclusions Our study of published trials indicates that using low, as opposed to standard, IAP during laparoscopic cholecystectomy may reduce patients’ post-operative pain, including shoulder pain, and length of hospital stay. Heterogeneity in the pooled estimates and high risk of bias of the included trials suggest the need for high-quality, adequately powered RCTs to confirm these findings.