RETRACTED ARTICLE: The effects of a recruitment manoeuvre with positive end-expiratory pressure on lung compliance in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
The effects of a recruitment manoeuvre (RM) with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on lung compliance (C LUNG ) are not well characterised in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP). Patients were allocated to group R (n = 10; with an RM) or C (n = 9; without an RM). An RM inv...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical monitoring and computing 2020-04, Vol.34 (2), p.303-310 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The effects of a recruitment manoeuvre (RM) with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on lung compliance (C
LUNG
) are not well characterised in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP). Patients were allocated to group R (n = 10; with an RM) or C (n = 9; without an RM). An RM involved sustained inflation of 30 cmH
2
O for 30 s. The lungs were ventilated with volume-controlled ventilation with tidal volume of 7 mL kg
−1
of predicted body weight and fraction of inspired oxygen of 0.5. End-tidal carbon dioxide pressure was maintained at normocapnia. Patients were in the horizontal lithotomy position (pre-op). After pneumoperitoneum, patients underwent RARP in a steep Trendelenburg lithotomy position at a PEEP level of 0 cmH
2
O (RARP0). An RM was used in the R group but not in the C group. Patients were then ventilated with 5 cmH
2
O PEEP for 1 h after RARP0 (RARP5.1) and 2 h after RARP0 (RARP5.2). Oesophageal pressure and airway pressure were measured for calculating C
LUNG
and chest wall compliance. C
LUNG
significantly decreased from pre-op to RARP0 and did not significantly increase from RARP0 to RARP5.1 and RARP5.2 in either group. C
LUNG
differed significantly between groups at RARP5.1 and RARP5.2 (103 ± 30 vs. 68 ± 11 mL cm
−1
H
2
O and 106 ± 35 vs. 72 ± 9 mL cm
−1
H
2
O;
P
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 1387-1307 1573-2614 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s10877-019-00306-y |