diagnostic laparoscopy for different surgical conditions

Background
• minimally invasive method for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal diseases through
direct inspection of intra-abdominal organs. Exploratory laparoscopy also allows
tissue biopsy, culture acquisition, and a variety of therapeutic interventions. [1, 2]
Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) can also be performed during exploratory
laparoscopy to evaluate organs that are not amenable to direct visual inspection.
• The advent of laparoscopic surgery represents a landmark in surgery that
initiated a shift from the era of open abdominal surgery to the minimally invasive
surgery revolution. [3, 4] Today, laparoscopy is the most common and preferred
method for addressing a number of routine and complex surgical procedures,
such as cholecystectomy, appendectomy, splenectomy, adrenalectomy, and
others. Whereas the use of laparoscopic techniques is primarily a relatively
recent occurrence, the development of laparoscopy spans three centuries. [5]

The main advantages of diagnostic laparoscopy over traditional open
laparotomy are as follows:
• Reduced morbidity
• Decreased postoperative pain
• Shorter hospital stay

• Diagnostic laparoscopy is useful for making a definitive clinical diagnosis
whenever there is a diagnostic dilemma even after routine diagnostic
workup, including patients with nonspecific abdominal pain,
hemodynamically stable patients who have sustained blunt or penetrating
trauma with suspected intra-abdominal injuries, and critically ill intensive
care unit (ICU) patients with suspected intra-abdominal sepsis or
pathologies.
• Diagnostic laparoscopy is an extremely useful staging tool in patients with
intra-abdominal cancers (eg, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, gallbladder, or
bile duct cancer; solitary/resectable liver metastasis; and lymphoma). By
enabling accurate staging, diagnostic laparoscopy permits patient selection
for curative resection or neoadjuvant chemotherapy while avoiding
nontherapeutic laparotomy, which is associated with a delay in the
initiation of chemotherapy.

Acute abdominal pain
• Acute abdominal pain is one of the most common indications for an
emergency department (ED) visit. In 30-40% of these patients, the etiology
of the abdominal pain remains elusive despite laboratory and radiologic
investigations. When a diagnosis of persistent acute abdominal pain of less
than 7 days' duration remains uncertain after baseline diagnostic and
radiologic investigations, this condition is termed nonspecific abdominal
pain (NSAP).
• Traditionally, NSAP has been treated either with open exploratory
laparotomy for conditions the patient was presumed to have or with active
observation. Unfortunately, these approaches were often associated with
prolonged hospital stays, higher numbers of radiologic imaging studies and
laparotomies with negative findings, and patient dissatisfaction if the
diagnosis could not be established. This scenario is especially prevalent in
pregnant women and obese patients, in whom availability of or access to
imaging studies is limited by the gestational age or the patient’s size. [1, 6

In this setting, diagnostic laparoscopy is the preferred next step in management
because it permits the following:
• Visualization of the entire abdominal cavity
• Localization of intra-abdominal pathology
• Acquisition of peritoneal fluid for cultures or cytology
• Ability to irrigate the peritoneal cavity to decrease contamination
• In many cases, specific therapeutic intervention (eg, laparoscopic
cholecystectomy, appendectomy, or other curative resection)
• As a result of these capabilities, exploratory laparoscopy results in an improved
diagnosis rate, as well as reductions in nontherapeutic laparotomies, number of
radiologic studies performed, delayed initiation of treatment, and overall length
of hospital stay. [7, 8, 9, 10]

• Regarding the utility of exploratory laparoscopy for patients with
NSAP, a meta-analysis of four randomized control trials (N = 811)
comparing exploratory laparoscopy with active observation
concluded that early diagnostic laparoscopy was associated with a
decreased number of patients discharged without a final diagnosis.
[11] Length of stay (LOS) in the hospital and readmission rate were
also decreased in the diagnostic laparoscopy group; however, these
changes did not reach statistical significance.

• In a nonrandomized prospective study, Golash et al reported on 1320
consecutive patients with acute abdominal pain who underwent
diagnostic laparoscopy within 48 hours of admission. [13] A definitive
diagnosis was made in 90% of patients after diagnostic laparoscopy,
of whom 30% underwent a therapeutic procedure. Diagnostic
laparoscopy was found to reduce unnecessary laparotomy and
improved diagnostic accuracy in this population.

Trauma
• Diagnostic laparoscopy is uniquely useful in the evaluation of hemodynamically
stable patients who have sustained blunt or penetrating trauma. [15, 16, 17] It
can provide accurate diagnosis of intra-abdominal injuries, thereby reducing
nontherapeutic laparotomies and associated complications. In some cases,
therapeutic procedures can be performed, depending on local expertise and the
extent of additional injuries.
• Diagnostic laparoscopy is indicated in the following trauma patients:
• Those in whom there is a high index of suspicion for intra-abdominal injuries
after a negative initial diagnostic workup
• Those with penetrating abdominal trauma and a breach of the peritoneum
where intra-abdominal organ injury is suspected
• Those with tangential gunshot wounds where the intraperitoneal trajectory is
unclear

• Diagnostic laparoscopy may also be useful for evaluating diaphragmatic injury in patients
with penetrating trauma to the thoracoabdominal region (likely more so than
ultrasonography [US] alone [18] ), and mainly for the creation of a transdiaphragmatic
pericardial window to diagnose or relieve hemopericardium/cardiac tamponade. [7, 1,
19]
• Diagnostic laparoscopy in trauma patients is typically performed with the patient under
general anesthesia; however, ED diagnostic laparoscopy with local anesthesia [20] and
intravenous (IV) sedation has been reported. Diagnostic laparoscopy is indicated only in
hemodynamically stable patients and those patients without a clear indication for a
laparotomy, such as evisceration or aspiration/leakage of bile or bowel contents.
• Limitations that undermine the universal application of diagnostic laparoscopy in trauma
patients include prolonged operating room (OR) time to set up laparoscopic equipment,
which may delay therapeutic intervention and the difficulty associated with clear
identification of certain injuries, such as bowel injuries and retroperitoneal injuries. [7]

Intensive care
• Critically ill patients with suspected intra-abdominal pathology pose a uniquely difficult
diagnostic problem. Whereas the need to expedite the diagnosis, rule out intra-
abdominal pathology, and gain control of the source is pressing, there are inherent risks
in transporting ICU patients who are often unstable and require mechanical ventilator or
inotropic support to either radiology or the OR.
• Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy, which can be performed within the ICU, often with local
anesthesia or IV sedation, is ideal for these patients in that it can expedite the diagnosis,
enable therapeutic intervention, and avoid the morbidity of open exploration. Note,
however, that not all pathologic conditions are readily identifiable by means of
exploratory laparoscopy. Conditions involving the retroperitoneum (including the
pancreas, perinephric area, and kidneys) may be missed with exploratory laparoscopy.
• That said, exploratory laparoscopy has demonstrated excellent accuracy in the diagnosis
of more common causes of ICU-related sepsis, such as ischemic bowel, intra-abdominal
abscess, perforated viscus, and acalculous/gangrenous cholecystitis. [7, 1, 21, 22]

• The most common indication for diagnostic laparoscopy in the ICU is suspected
intra-abdominal pathology in a patient with unexplained sepsis. Other indications
include the following:
• Abdominal pain and tenderness in an obtunded or sedated patient that do not
pose an obvious indication for a therapeutic intervention (eg, free intra-
abdominal air, massive gastrointestinal [GI] bleeding, or small-bowel obstruction)
or cannot be explained by other causes (eg, urinary tract infection, pneumonia,
or pleuritis)
• Progressive metabolic acidosis (lactic acidemia) that is not explained by other
causes
• Suspected intra-abdominal hypertension that is not attributable to small-bowel
obstruction/GI bleeding or bowel obstruction; diagnostic laparoscopy is rarely
used in this setting, because it may pose an increased risk of bowel injury during
port creation, and pneumoperitoneum itself may exacerbate elevated intra-
abdominal pressure [1, 3]

• Although minimally invasive surgery has expanded extensively in
recent decades, adaptation of this approach to ICU patients, despite
multiple indications, has been reported in relatively few case series.
Whereas exploratory laparoscopy in this setting has succeeded in
decreasing the number of nontherapeutic laparotomies in 36-95% of
patients, mortality has remained unchanged (58-100%), probably as a
consequence of patients’ underlying critical illnesses.

• In two large published series, Peris et al [22] and Karasakalides et al [23] reported on ICU
patients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy.
• In the first series (N = 32), [22] bedside diagnostic laparoscopy was performed after an
average ICU stay of 8 days, and the mean procedure time was 40 minutes. Diagnostic
laparoscopy identified the source of intra-abdominal pathology in 15 patients, of whom
13 subsequently underwent definitive surgical treatment. A diagnosis of cholecystitis was
confirmed in seven cases, of which two were treated with open cholecystectomy and five
underwent percutaneous cholecystostomy. The time required for diagnostic laparoscopy
was shorter (21.8 ± 7.6 min) than that required for computed tomography (CT) when
patient transport was included (38.2 ± 6.2 min).
• In the second series, of the 35 ICU patients in whom bedside diagnostic laparoscopy was
performed, 20 (57.1%) avoided a negative laparotomy. [23] The remaining patients were
found to have an intra-abdominal pathologic condition (eg, acalculous cholecystitis,
perforated duodenal ulcer, ischemic colitis, or gallbladder empyema).

• Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy may be a practical means of
identifying or excluding intra-abdominal pathology in a very ill cohort
of the ICU population. It can be performed by using local anesthesia
with sedation and may permit therapeutic intervention while avoiding
the morbidity of a negative laparotomy in patients who are already ill.
Large-scale randomized trials are needed for further validation.

Staging of intra-abdominal cancers
• A significant percentage of intra-abdominal cancers prove to be
inoperable because of metastatic or locally advanced disease despite
a preoperative workup suggesting a potentially resectable disease.
Historically, these patients would have undergone morbid negative
laparotomies with associated complications and the resultant delay in
the initiation of adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy.
• Diagnostic laparoscopy for accurate staging of intra-abdominal
malignancies is referred to as staging laparoscopy and is performed as
a standard part of the staging workup for an increasing number of
cancer subtypes. [1, 24, 25, 26]

• Staging laparoscopy is useful in the evaluation of intra-abdominal malignancy in the following
aspects:
• Accurate staging of the tumor
• Avoidance of nontherapeutic laparotomy in patients with metastatic diseases
• Means of excluding metastatic disease and obtaining tissue biopsy prior to the initiation of
neoadjuvant chemotherapy
• Means of obtaining tissue for diagnosis (lymphomas) or performing peritoneal lavage cytology
to exclude the presence of occult peritoneal metastasis
• Identification of patients with locally advanced disease (fixed tumor or vascular invasion) when
there is no evidence of distant metastasis
• Selection of appropriate palliative treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic disease
• Prior to definitive laparotomy after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to assess
treatment response or disease progression
• Assessment of suitability for cytoreductive therapy with hyperthermic intraperitoneal
chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis at the time of surgery [27]

Esophageal cancer
• often presents with locally advanced tumors, as well as lymph node or distant metastases, and is
associated with an overall poor prognosis. Data suggest that survival may be improved with
preoperative chemotherapy and radiation followed by surgical resection. However, as with other
GI malignancies, preoperative imaging may suggest resectable disease, though a significant
percentage (20-65%) of esophageal cancers are found to be unresectable at the time of
exploration.
• Diagnostic laparoscopy is particularly valuable in staging esophageal cancer because it helps
identify patients who may or may not benefit from preoperative chemotherapy and thus helps
avoid avoid laparotomy or thoracotomy with negative findings.
• Laparoscopic placement of feeding tubes can also be performed at the same setting as staging
laparoscopy, which can improve the nutritional status of these patients and prevent the need for
additional procedures such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), which may be
technically difficult. [1, 25]
• In esophageal cancer, staging laparoscopy has a reported accuracy of 75-80% in identifying
peritoneal metastasis with a staging sensitivity and specificity of 64% and 70% as compared with
ultrasonography (US; 40-50%) and CT (45-60%). The utility of diagnostic laparoscopy in
esophageal cancer is shown to improve with the addition of LUS and video thoracoscopy. [28]

Gastric cancer
• Clinical trials have reported improved survival among gastric cancer patients with tumors (T3-
T4N1) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to definitive surgical resection. [29] In
those trials, gastric cancer patients with locally advanced tumor or with lymph node metastases
derived survival benefit; however, in the presence of unresectable disease or disseminated
metastases, 5-year survival remains poor (< 20%).
• It is thus imperative to identify gastric cancer patients who may benefit from neoadjuvant
chemotherapy and those with advanced or metastatic tumors who are not candidates for
therapeutic laparotomy. [30] This may be done with diagnostic laparoscopy. [31]
• Several investigators reported that diagnostic laparoscopy has an accuracy of 89-100% for staging,
identifies occult metastasis or unresectable disease, and avoids nontherapeutic laparotomy in 13-
57% of gastric patients despite a negative preoperative imaging workup. [32, 33]
• Diagnostic laparoscopy has a uniquely high sensitivity (90-96%) for identifying metastasis to liver,
peritoneum, and lymph nodes as compared with either ultrasonography (23-37%) or CT (28-52%).
As in pancreatic cancer, diagnostic laparoscopy combined with LUS further improved
identification of liver metastasis, and peritoneal lavage cytology enhanced identification of occult
peritoneal metastasis by 10-15%. [33]

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma
• Despite advances in preoperative imaging (including CT, endoscopic US [EUS], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI],
and positron emission tomography [PET]), 15-40% of patients with pancreatic cancer whose tumors are deemed
resectable are found to have unresectable tumors because of local tumor extension or presence of metastasis.
• Large tumor size, pancreatic adenocarcinoma as opposed to periampullary cancer or duodenal cancer, body and
tail location, and preoperative CA 19-9 serum levels higher than 150 U/mL are associated with a finding of
metastatic cancer at the time of staging laparoscopy. [34]
• The median sensitivity (range), specificity, and accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy in identifying imaging-occult,
unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma are 94% (93-100%), 88% (80-100%), and 89% (87-98%), respectively.
• Laparotomy with negative findings can be avoided in 4-36% of patients, but not in all cases; 5-7% of patients
believed to be resectable on the basis of diagnostic laparoscopy findings are found to have unresectable tumors
at the time of open exploration, typically attributable to occult vascular invasion, fixed tumors, or presence of
lymph node metastasis. [34]
• When diagnostic laparoscopy is combined with LUS, the diagnostic accuracy of the procedure increases by 12-
14%; however, few surgeons and centers have the skills and equipment to interpret LUS images. Peritoneal lavage
cytology can further improve the identification of occult metastasis in 7-15% of patients; however, time
constraints may hinder identification, and expert cytopathologists may not be available. [35]

Primary liver tumors
• Staging laparoscopy is indicated in patients with primary liver tumors when
preoperative imaging suggests likely resectable disease and an adequate hepatic
reserve. Although the incidence of peritoneal metastases is uncommon in these
patients, diagnostic laparoscopy combined with LUS permits assessment of the
entire hepatic parenchyma and allows identification of the size, location, and
number of liver tumors, as well as potential vascular invasion.
• Diagnostic laparoscopy combined with LUS has a sensitivity of 63-67% for
identifying unresectable disease in patients with liver cancer and a
nontherapeutic laparotomy avoidance rate of 25-40%. Diagnostic laparoscopy
with LUS has a sensitivity of 96-100% for lesions larger than 2 cm compared with
a sensitivity of 35-40% for triphasic CT. However, diagnostic laparoscopy can also
yield false-negative results in 5-15% of primary liver tumors. [23, 24, 25]

Biliary tract tumors
• Staging laparoscopy is indicated for nearly all patients with gallbladder
cancer, hilar cholangiocarcinoma, or extrahepatic bile duct tumors without
evidence of unresectability or metastatic disease on preoperative imaging.
[37, 38] The increased availability of EUS may limit the yield of diagnostic
laparoscopy to those with T2 or T3 cholangiocarcinoma; most patients with
T1 cancers are resectable.
• Diagnostic laparoscopy has diagnostic accuracies of 48-60% and 53-60% for
identifying unresectable disease in patients with gallbladder cancer and
cholangiocarcinoma, respectively. [23, 24, 25] The addition of LUS may
enhance the overall yield and accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy in this
setting. [39]

Colorectal cancer
• Patients with primary colorectal cancer but without evidence of systemic
metastases seldom benefit from diagnostic laparoscopy, primarily because of its
low yield in identifying occult or subclinical metastasis but also because most
patients undergo a colectomy (laparoscopic or open) with curative intent or as
palliation for bleeding, obstruction, or perforation.
• However, when colorectal cancer presents with isolated liver metastases without
evidence of extrahepatic disease, diagnostic laparoscopy with intraoperative US
can be extremely useful for the identification of the number and location of
hepatic metastases, as well as for ruling out peritoneal or extrahepatic disease.
When a staging laparoscopy is performed for this indication, a nontherapeutic
laparotomy can be avoided in 25-45% of patients.
• As with other GI cancers, diagnostic laparoscopy with LUS has a higher sensitivity
and specificity of 98-99% for identifying occult hepatic metastasis and evaluating
the portahepatic and celiac lymph nodes. [23, 24, 25]

Lymphoma
• With improved radiologic imaging and image-guided biopsy procedures, an
open operation for staging lymphomas has become mostly obsolete.
However, a needle biopsy is associated with high false-negative rates, and
architectural classification of lymphomas cannot be interpreted from tissue
obtained on a needle biopsy. The goals of the staging workup for Hodgkin
disease are to determine the following:
• Presence of intradiaphragmatic disease
• Presence or absence of splenic and liver involvement
• This information is especially relevant in patients with clinical stage I and II
Hodgkin disease, in that 25-40% of these patients will be upstaged as a
result of this information. [40]

• Laparoscopic staging of Hodgkin disease typically consists of
splenectomy, wedge biopsy of the liver, and three core-needle liver
biopsies. Lymph node biopsies from the left and right para-aortic and
iliac nodes and from the celiac, portahepatic, and mesenteric regions
may also be obtained with all operative sites marked by metallic clips
to aid localization during subsequent radiation therapy. LUS may also
have a role if hepatic lesions are suspected. Oophoropexy behind the
uterus may also be performed to protect it from radiation injury.
• In addition, laparoscopy may also have a role in assessing treatment
response or when a recurrence is suspected.

• Unlike Hodgkin disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) does not spread in
a predictable or contiguous fashion. These patients may present with
prominent retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, hypersplenism, or both but
without peripheral lymphadenopathy, thus requiring laparoscopic biopsy
for diagnosis or splenectomy in case of hypersplenism.
• Diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with Hodgkin disease and NHL provides
tissue for diagnosis, aids in accurate staging, and prevents the morbidity of
unnecessary laparotomy. Compared with percutaneous biopsy, laparoscopy
biopsy has superior sensitivity (87% vs 100%), specificity (93% vs 100%),
and accuracy (33% vs 83%). [41]

Diagnosis of chronic conditions
• Liver diseases
• Diagnostic laparoscopy is frequently used to evaluate or obtain biopsy in patients with
abnormal liver function test results (liver diseases) after nondiagnostic findings from
radiologic investigations. It is particularly useful in patients with liver cirrhosis for
establishing histopathologic confirmation, grading severity of illness, and evaluating and
performing biopsy on lesions that are difficult to access percutaneously.
• Other indications include diffuse liver diseases (related to HIV or hepatitis virus,
hepatomegaly of unknown etiology, or portal hypertension) and liver masses (to rule out
metastatic cancer, hepatoma, or benign masses).
• Exploratory laparoscopy is associated with a 91% success rate for obtaining the correct
diagnosis in patients who require laparoscopic liver biopsy and has a sensitivity and
specificity of 100% and 97%, respectively. LUS can further improve the accuracy of
diagnostic laparoscopy. [1, 42]

• Nonpalpable testis (cryptorchidism)
• In pediatric patients with nonpalpable testicles, diagnostic laparoscopy offers a
minimally invasive alternative to open surgical exploration for locating testicles.
Diagnostic laparoscopy is indicated when findings from initial inguinoscrotal
exploration are nondiagnostic.
• In reported series, diagnostic laparoscopy permitted localization of the
nonpalpable testis with 99-100% accuracy, and nontherapeutic laparotomy was
avoided in 15-30% of patients. Laparoscopic examination also provides
information essential for therapeutic planning, including length and point of entry
of the vas deferens, presence of malignant transformation, and status of opposite
testis (if undescended). If necessary, therapeutic intervention (orchidectomy or
orchidopexy [43] ) can be performed laparoscopically in the same setting.

• Chronic pelvic pain and infertility
• Chronic pelvic pain, defined as pelvic pain lasting more than 6 months, is a complex disorder with
multiple underlying etiologies that range from endometriosis and adhesions to pelvic
inflammatory disease (PID).
• Diagnostic laparoscopy permits direct visualization of pelvic structures, allowing identification of
common etiologies, including endometriosis, adhesions, and ovarian cysts. In published reports,
diagnostic laparoscopy has a sensitivity of 78-84% for identifying endometriosis directly; pelvic
peritoneal biopsy and peritoneal lavage can further improve the diagnostic yield by 20-25%.
Diagnostic laparoscopy is a similarly highly accurate method for evaluating women with PID and
has a diagnostic accuracy of 78-92%. [1, 42, 44]
• Infertility is one common indication in which diagnostic laparoscopy plays an important role.
Diagnostic laparoscopy is often combined with hysterosalpingography to evaluate the patency of
fallopian tubes, during which a therapeutic intervention can also be undertaken. Diagnostic
laparoscopy has a yield of 21-68% for identifying the cause of infertility.

Contraindications
• Absolute contraindications for exploratory laparoscopy include the following:
• Known or obvious indication for therapeutic intervention, such as perforation,
peritonitis, known intra-abdominal injury, complications of previous surgery,
shock, evisceration, or abdominal wall dehiscence
• Acute intestinal obstruction associated with a massive (>4 cm) bowel dilatation,
which may obscure the laparoscopic view and increase the likelihood of bowel
injury
• Uncorrected coagulopathy
• A tense or distended abdomen (with suspected intra-abdominal compartment
syndrome)
• Trauma with hemodynamic instability or a clear indication of bowel injuries,
such as presence of bile or evisceration

• Relative contraindications for diagnostic laparoscopy include the following:
• ICU patients who are too ill to tolerate pneumoperitoneum, potential
hypercarbia, or general anesthesia
• Presence of anterior abdominal wall infection (cellulitis or soft-tissue infection)
• Recent laparotomy (within 4-6 weeks) or extensive adhesions secondary to
previous abdominal surgery
• Aortoiliac aneurysmal disease (may be associated with increased risk of
vascular rupture)
• Pregnancy (may be associated with injury to gravid uterus or fetal distress)
• Cardiopulmonary compromise
• Morbid obesity

Technical Considerations
• Complication prevention
• Complications associated with laparoscopic surgery can be classified as those related to anesthesia and
those associated with creation of the pneumoperitoneum or insertion of the trocars and may include the
following:
• Anesthesia-related complications
• Extra-peritoneal gas insufflation
• Injury to intra-abdominal structures
• Bladder injury
• Pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum
• Gas embolism
• Bowel injury
• Port-site recurrence

Equipment
• Tools for visualization
• The components necessary to create a laparoscopic image include a laparoscope, a video camera, a light
source, and a display monitor.
• The most commonly used laparoscopes are those with 0º or 30º lenses with a diameter of 10 mm (range,
2.7-12 mm). A fiberoptic light cable transmits light from the light source. Image transmission is provided by a
lens system within the laparoscope using the same fiberoptic cable. The transmitted image is processed by
the camera system and displayed on a video monitor.
• The light source consists of high-intensity halogen, mercury, or xenon vapor bulbs with an output of 250-300
W. Some units are equipped with automatic brightness adjustment capabilities. Digital video recorders and
video printers are often used to record or preserve laparoscopic images or procedures.
• Larger-diameter laparoscopes provides better optical resolution and enable brighter imaging with improved
resolution. A 30º laparoscope is preferred to a 0º laparoscope for most procedures because it provides a
wider delineation of the surgical field and allows imaging of relatively inaccessible intra-abdominal regions
with only a slight movement of the camera.

• Equipment to create pneumoperitoneum
• An insufflant system consists of insufflator, tubing, and a chosen gas to obtain the
pneumoperitoneum. Insufflation can be achieved through either a closed (Veress needle)
or an open (Hasson cannula) method.
• Carbon dioxide is the most commonly used insufflant agent because it is very soluble in
blood and rapidly expelled by lungs. Moreover, it does not support combustion.
• In patients with chronic respiratory disease, carbon dioxide may accumulate in the
bloodstream, leading to dangerous hypercapnia. Accordingly, in these patients, other
insufflant gases (eg, helium, xenon, argon, krypton, room air, oxygen, and nitrous oxide)
are alternatives; however, the potential side effects include poor solubility, increased
incidence of air embolism, greater risk of fire (with air and oxygen), and higher cost.

• Basic instruments needed to perform diagnostic laparoscopy
• Instruments for grasping and dissection include a 5-mm Maryland dissector,
blunt-tip dissecting forceps, atraumatic grasping forceps, and L- or J- shaped hook
dissector.
• Instruments for incising and hemostasis include 5-mm laparoscopic scissors,
electrocautery (unipolar or bipolar), and various newer energy devices, such as
the LigaSure vessel sealing system (Valleylab, Boulder, CO) or an ultrasonically
activated scalpel.
• Instruments for clipping and stapling (5 mm or 10 mm; range, 5-12 mm) are
useful to prevent or stop bleeding. Various stapling devices (linear cutting vs
noncutting, intestinal vs vascular) are also available but usually are not essential
to the performance of diagnostic laparoscopy.

• Instruments for performing biopsy and specimen retrieval include cup biopsy
forceps can for liver biopsy. Depending on the size of the tissue and whether the
organ is retrieved intact or after in-situ morecellation, a number of organ
entrapment and retrieval systems are available. Although retrieval bags are
needed in patients with lymphoma or patients who had a therapeutic resection,
direct retrieval of specimens through the 12-mm port without the need for a
retrieval bag is feasible in most patients undergoing staging laparoscopy for
cancer, liver, lymph node, or peritoneal biopsy.
• Instruments for suction and irrigation are necessary to improve visualization and
prevent accumulation of blood or irrigation fluid. Most commonly, a disposable
battery-powered suction-irrigation setup is used, consisting of 5 L of normal
saline solution used as an irrigant and a 5- or 10-mm metal tube used as a
laparoscopic suctioning device. However, while the suctioning device is in use, it
is important to refrain from direct contact with tissues so as to prevent serosal
damage.

• nstruments for retraction include laparoscopic retractors, which greatly
facilitate exposure by keeping the surrounding structures away from the
area of interest. Although they come in various shapes, the one most
commonly used for for diagnostic laparoscopy is a liver retractor, which is
useful for examining the undersurface of liver, as well as the lesser sac.
• Optional equipment includes a laparoscopic ultrasound device, which is
useful in patients in whom liver metastasis is suspected for accurately
measuring the number, size, and location of metastasis, as well as for ruling
out inoperable disease in patients with gallbladder or cholangiocarcinoma.

Patient Preparation
• Laparoscopic procedures can accentuate the risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) through the
following two mechanisms:
• Increased venous pooling secondary to reverse Trendelenburg position (cranial end at higher level than
foot end)
• Inferior vena cava (IVC) compression attributable to elevated intra-abdominal pressure
• Elastic compression stockings applied to legs can improve venous return but may not be sufficient. For
patients at moderate-to-high risk for developing DVT (eg, with morbid obesity, operative duration >30 min, a
history of previous DVT or pulmonary embolism [PE], or certain cancers with an increased association with
DVT) should receive prophylaxis with fractionated or unfractionated heparin.
• For preparing the patient, povidone-iodine solution or any solution that is institutionally approved should be
used. In most cases, the area of scrubbing and draping extends from nipple to midthigh. However, this area
can be extended in accordance with the underlying pathology. For example, in the case of diagnostic
laparoscopy for cancer of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, the thorax and neck should also be
cleaned and draped. In patients with pelvic or urologic malignancies, both the groin and the external
genitalia should also be prepared and draped.

Anesthesia
• Laparoscopic surgical procedures are most commonly performed with general anesthesia and
skeletal muscle relaxation. However, in rare circumstances, such as in trauma and intensive care
unit (ICU) patients, local anesthesia with intravenous (IV) sedation has been successfully used.
[23]
• Appropriate anesthetic techniques along with proper monitoring are obligatory for optimal
anesthesia care during laparoscopy. Commonly employed monitoring methods include
electrocardiography (ECG), noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring, airway pressure monitoring,
pulse oximetry, end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration monitoring, peripheral nerve stimulation,
and use of a body temperature probe. End-tidal carbon dioxide can be used as a noninvasive
substitute for arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) in evaluating the adequacy of ventilation
during laparoscopic surgery.
• In hemodynamically unstable patients and in those with cardiopulmonary dysfunction, careful
cardiovascular monitoring and arterial blood gas analysis may be necessary.
• Nerve stimulation monitoring helps to ensure adequate muscle paralysis, which is necessary for
reducing the intra-abdominal pressure required for adequate abdominal distention. [42]

Positioning
• The majority of abdominal laparoscopic procedures are performed
with patients in the supine position, whereas the lithotomy position is
favored for pelvic pathologies (eg, rectal cancer, gynecologic
malignancies, or pelvic conditions).

• Both arms are typically tucked to the patient's sides to permit the surgeon
and assistant to get closer to the patient. A belt is placed firmly across the
pelvis and a foot plate placed against the plantar surfaces to prevent the
patient from sliding down if a reverse Trendelenburg position is needed. A
Foley catheter is not mandatory but should be used in a patient undergoing
pelvis-based surgery or when a prolonged procedure is anticipated.
• To facilitate an unobstructed view, gravity is often used to move the
structures and organs away from the area of operative interest. For
example, during examination of the liver, stomach, or other proximal GI
structures, the patient is placed in a reverse Trendelenburg position with a
slight left lateral tilt (right side up). To examine pelvic structures, a
Trendelenburg position is used (head at the end of the bed at a lower level
than feet).

Placement of equipment
• Modern laparoscopic surgery is traditionally performed with the surgeon
and the assistant standing on the same side of the table and the monitor
and table-mounted instrument holder positioned on the opposite side. The
scrub nurse stands on the opposite side of the table from the surgeon, with
the instrument table towards the end of the table. This facilitates
communication between the surgeon and the scrub nurse and allows
instruments to be passed more easily.
• A secondary monitor can be positioned anywhere in the room to facilitate
viewing by the ancillary operating room staff. The cart or laparoscope
system holder, with the monitor for the primary surgeon, typically also
houses the insufflators placed near the surgeon’s eye level to allow
continuous monitoring of carbon dioxide pressure. The light source,
camera controls, and any recording devices are also on this cart.

Approach Considerations
• Before making a skin incision for obtaining the pneumoperitoneum required in
exploratory (diagnostic) laparoscopy, the following should be checked:
• Light source is working, along with a camera that is focused and white balanced
• Carbon dioxide tank is full, and an extra tank is available in the room
• Irrigation-aspiration unit is working
• Electrocautery unit is functional
• Insufflation is checked for flow and proper shutoff response to kinking of the
tubing
• When closed pneumoperitoneum is planned, a Veress needle is checked for
flow and proper tip retraction

Creation of Pneumoperitoneum and Port
Placement
• Depending on the procedure, the access port is often placed in the infra- or supraumbilical region. However,
the initial site of port placement should be chosen according to the suspected pathology and the planned
therapeutic procedure, with particular attention to avoiding previous abdominal scars.
• The pneumoperitoneum can be achieved by means of either closed or open methods. In the closed method, a
14-gauge Veress needle (disposable or reusable) is used to enter the peritoneal cavity. Before the needle is
inserted, it is of critical importance to check patency and appropriate retraction of the tip. After an initial nick
on the skin, the abdominal wall is lifted with a firm hand grasp or towel clips, and the Veress needle is inserted
through the linea alba and away from previous scars.
• Entry into the peritoneal cavity is suggested by a sudden release in resistance and can be confirmed by several
methods, including aspiration of the Veress needle or suctioning of a saline droplet placed at the hub of the
Veress needle.
• Once intraperitoneal position is confirmed, the carbon dioxide insufflation is started, and the opening pressure
should not be elevated (< 5-6 mm Hg). An elevated initial insufflation pressure may reflect clogging of the
Veress needle, kink in the insufflation tubing, inappropriate placement of the Veress needle tip in
preperitoneal space or against omentum, inadequate skeletal muscle relaxation, or, in the worst scenario, the
needle lying inside the intra-abdominal organs.

• The open or Hasson technique of creating a pneumoperitoneum is accomplished
by making a small skin incision and dissecting down to the rectus fascia. Stay
sutures are laced with 0 absorbable suture material on either side of the fascia,
after which the peritoneum is identified and grasped with Kocher or Allis clamps
and opened with scissors. Confirmation of entry into the peritoneal cavity can be
achieved with visualization of the omentum or small bowel or by digital palpation
of the smooth intra-abdominal structures.
• A Hasson port is placed and secured in place with the fascial sutures, and the
inner obturator is removed. The stay sutures are also used to close the abdominal
wall. The insufflation tubing is attached to the side port of the trocar, and the
abdomen is inflated rapidly to 15 mm Hg. Additional ports are placed as
necessary for tissue manipulation, biopsy, or therapeutic maneuvers.

Initial Inspection of Peritoneal Cavity
• After port placement, a detailed examination of the peritoneal cavity is performed.
• In patients presenting with acute abdominal pain, depending on the site of suspected
pathology, all relevant structures (including gallbladder, appendix, colon, and any other
likely affected sites) are grossly examined for signs of inflammation (eg, swelling,
erythema, fibrinous exudates, inflammatory adhesions, or formation of phlegm). It is
important to note the nature of ascitic fluid (clear vs purulent) to rule out intra-
abdominal abscesses. In the presence of an obvious pathology, a therapeutic procedure
(laparoscopic or open) can be undertaken simultaneously.
• In patients with intra-abdominal malignancy, a systematic examination of the primary
tumor site as well as all abdominal viscera and the pelvis is performed to identify gross
evidence of metastasis. The primary tumor is assessed to detect direct extension into
contiguous organs. If there is evidence of widespread or peritoneal-based disease or liver
metastasis or if there is a direct extension of the primary tumor to surrounding
structures that renders the tumor unresectable, diagnostic laparoscopy is terminated
after confirmatory biopsy specimens are taken

Placement of Additional Ports
• After initial inspection, additional ports can be placed to further
explore the areas of interest or to perform a therapeutic procedure.
The number and site of port placements depends upon the anatomic
region of interest, as well as the planned procedure.
• In general, to achieve a desirable operative dexterity, the ports should
be placed to form an equilateral triangle or a diamond, with the
camera and the distance to the operative target taken into account.
Then, 5- or 10-mm additional ports are placed after incision of the
skin under direct visualization to prevent unintended injuries.

Staging Laparoscopy for Intra-abdominal
Cancers
• After inspection of the peritoneal cavity, a systematic examination of the intra-
abdominal organs is performed, starting with the liver. The operating table is
placed in reverse Trendelenburg position (20-30º) with 10-15º of left lateral tilt.
This maneuver pushes surrounding structures, especially the small bowel and
omentum, away from the liver and facilitates hepatic examination. Examination
of both surfaces (anterior and posterior) of the left lateral section of the liver is
carried out, followed by similar examination of the superior and inferior surfaces
of the right hemiliver.
• Systematic palpation of liver surfaces to detect small tumors is performed with
blunt-tip suction or stone-extracting forceps. The examination of diaphragmatic
and posterior surfaces of the liver is accomplished by placing the camera in the
right upper quadrant or epigastric port(s). Subsequently, the hepatoduodenal
ligament, the hilum of the liver, and the foramen of Winslow are examined.
Biopsy of abnormal or enlarged lymph nodes is performed with the cup forceps.

• In patients with pancreatic or periampullary tumors, meticulous examination of the angle between the
duodenum and the lateral aspect of the common bile duct (CBD) is performed to rule out direct tumor
infiltration and hepatic artery encasement.
• Subsequently, colonic mesocolon is examined by repositioning the patient in a 10º Trendelenburg position
without lateral tilt and retracting the omentum towards the left upper quadrant. This maneuver is further
facilitated by elevating the transverse colon, which allows the ligament of Treitz to be identified. Careful
visual inspection of the mesocolon is performed and any suspicious nodules or nodes can be biopsied.
• The patient is then returned to a supine position. For the majority of patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI)
tumors, this is the limit of the staging laparoscopy. However, in patients with pancreatic cancer, it is
important to assess the lesser sac and celiac axis. This maneuver is performed by elevating the left hemiliver
and incising the gastrohepatic omentum to gain entrance into the lesser sac.
• With an angled or 30º laparoscope, a systematic examination of the anterior aspect of the pancreas, the
hepatic artery, and the left gastric artery is performed. The caudate lobe of the liver, the inferior vena cava
(IVC), and the celiac axis are also examined. Celiac, portal, perigastric, and hepatogastric nodes are examined
and can be biopsied if they appear suspicious.

Laparoscopic Ultrasonography
• Standard diagnostic laparoscopy is a two-dimensional modality that permits excellent visualization of the
peritoneal structures. However, it is limited by the lack of tactile sensation. The inability to see the
undersurface of the organs can limit the utility of laparoscopic staging. Direct palpation of the liver with
blunt laparoscopic instruments may be useful. However, identification of small tumors or precise delineation
of the anatomic relation of a tumor to adjacent structures is often difficult or impossible.
• Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) is an excellent adjunct to traditional laparoscopy and can be rapidly
performed. LUS probes (curved- or linear-array technology) with high-frequency (6-10 MHz) performance
permit high-resolution images to be obtained and can detect lesions as small as 0.2 cm within the hepatic
parenchyma.
• Color Doppler assessment can also be performed to allow accurate identification of blood vessels. Though
primarily used for assessment of the hepatic parenchyma, LUS has been used extensively for evaluation of
the biliary tract and in the staging of upper GI malignancies, by allowing assessment of liver metastases,
regional nodal disease, or local vascular involvement.
• Nevertheless, the additional value of LUS remains controversial. A number of authors have suggested that
LUS provides additional information in only 14-25% of patients during staging procedures, but some authors
believe that the yield is much less. [32, 33]

Port Closure
• Before the procedure is terminated, a meticulous examination is
undertaken to ensure adequate hemostasis and correct instrument
and gauze and sponge counts. Ports are removed under direct
visualization to ensure that there is no visceral herniation or bleeding.
An attempt should be made to decompress the abdominal cavity by
expelling the pneumoperitoneum to reduce postoperative shoulder
pain. All port sites larger than 5 mm should be closed with an
absorbable suture, and the skin is closed with either continuous or
interrupted subcuticular sutures.

References
1. [Guideline] Guidelines for diagnostic laparoscopy. Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Available at
https://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/guidelines-for-diagnostic-laparoscopy/. April 2010; Accessed: January 14, 2020.
2. Karateke F, Özdoğan M, Özyazıcı S, Daş K, Menekşe E, Gülnerman YC, et al. The management of penetrating abdominal trauma by
diagnostic laparoscopy: a prospective non-randomized study. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2013 Jan. 19 (1):53-7. [Medline].
3. Kooby DA. Laparoscopic surgery for cancer: historical, theoretical, and technical considerations. Oncology (Williston Park). 2006 Jul.
20 (8):917-27; discussion 927-8, 931-2. [Medline].
4. Modlin IM, Kidd M, Lye KD. From the lumen to the laparoscope. Arch Surg. 2004 Oct. 139 (10):1110-26. [Medline].
5. Stellato TA. History of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 1992 Oct. 72 (5):997-1002. [Medline].
6. [Guideline] Pearl JP, Price RR, Tonkin AE, Richardson WS, Stefanidis D. SAGES guidelines for the use of laparoscopy during pregnancy.
Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct. 31 (10):3767-3782. [Medline]. [Full Text].
7. Richardson WS, Stefanidis D, Chang L, Earle DB, Fanelli RD. The role of diagnostic laparoscopy for chronic abdominal conditions: an
evidence-based review. Surg Endosc. 2009 Sep. 23 (9):2073-7. [Medline].
8. Sauerland S, Agresta F, Bergamaschi R, Borzellino G, Budzynski A, Champault G, et al. Laparoscopy for abdominal emergencies:
evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc. 2006 Jan. 20 (1):14-29. [Medline].
9. Schietroma M, Cappelli S, Carlei F, Pescosolido A, Lygidakis NJ, Amicucci G. "Acute abdomen": early laparoscopy or active
laparotomic-laparoscopic observation?. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007 Jun. 54 (76):1137-41. [Medline].
10.Stefanidis D, Richardson WS, Chang L, Earle DB, Fanelli RD. The role of diagnostic laparoscopy for acute abdominal conditions: an
evidence-based review. Surg Endosc. 2009 Jan. 23 (1):16-23. [Medline].

11 Maggio AQ, Reece-Smith AM, Tang TY, Sadat U, Walsh SR. Early laparoscopy versus active observation in acute abdominal pain: systematic
review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2008 Oct. 6 (5):400-3. [Medline].
12 Morino M, Pellegrino L, Castagna E, Farinella E, Mao P. Acute nonspecific abdominal pain: A randomized, controlled trial comparing early
laparoscopy versus clinical observation. Ann Surg. 2006 Dec. 244 (6):881-6; discussion 886-8. [Medline].
13 Golash V, Willson PD. Early laparoscopy as a routine procedure in the management of acute abdominal pain: a review of 1,320 patients.
Surg Endosc. 2005 Jul. 19 (7):882-5. [Medline].
14 Domínguez LC, Sanabria A, Vega V, Osorio C. Early laparoscopy for the evaluation of nonspecific abdominal pain: a critical appraisal of the
evidence. Surg Endosc. 2011 Jan. 25 (1):10-8. [Medline].
15 Lim KH, Chung BS, Kim JY, Kim SS. Laparoscopic surgery in abdominal trauma: a single center review of a 7-year experience. World J Emerg
Surg. 2015. 10:16. [Medline].
16 Koto MZ, Matsevych OY, Aldous C. Diagnostic Laparoscopy for Trauma: How Not to Miss Injuries. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018 May.
28 (5):506-513. [Medline].
17 Bain K, Meytes V, Chang GC, Timoney MF. Laparoscopy in penetrating abdominal trauma is a safe and effective alternative to laparotomy.
Surg Endosc. 2019 May. 33 (5):1618-1625. [Medline].
18 Sharifi A, Kasraianfard A, Chavoshi Khamneh A, Kanani S, Aldarraji M, Seif-Rabiei MA, et al. Value of Ultrasonography in Detection of
Diaphragmatic Injuries Following Thoracoabdominal Penetrating Trauma; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2019. 7 (1):e45.
[Medline].
19 Kaban GK, Novitsky YW, Perugini RA, Haveran L, Czerniach D, Kelly JJ, et al. Use of laparoscopy in evaluation and treatment of penetrating
and blunt abdominal injuries. Surg Innov. 2008 Mar. 15 (1):26-31. [Medline].
20 Reda A, Said TM, Mourad S. Role of Laparoscopic Exploration Under Local Anesthesia in the Management of Hemodynamically Stable
Patients with Penetrating Abdominal Injury. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016 Jan. 26 (1):27-31. [Medline].

21 Jaramillo EJ, Treviño JM, Berghoff KR, Franklin ME Jr. Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy in the intensive care unit: a 13-year experience. JSLS.
2006 Apr-Jun. 10 (2):155-9. [Medline].
22 Peris A, Matano S, Manca G, Zagli G, Bonizzoli M, Cianchi G, et al. Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy to diagnose intraabdominal pathology in
the intensive care unit. Crit Care. 2009. 13 (1):R25. [Medline]. [Full Text].
23 Karasakalides A, Triantafillidou S, Anthimidis G, Ganas E, Mihalopoulou E, Lagonidis D, et al. The use of bedside diagnostic laparoscopy in
the intensive care unit. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009 Jun. 19 (3):333-8. [Medline].
24 Cuschieri A. Role of video-laparoscopy in the staging of intra-abdominal lymphomas and gastrointestinal cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 2001
Mar. 20 (2):167-72. [Medline].
25 Chang L, Stefanidis D, Richardson WS, Earle DB, Fanelli RD. The role of staging laparoscopy for intraabdominal cancers: an evidence-based
review. Surg Endosc. 2009 Feb. 23 (2):231-41. [Medline].
26 Mayo SC, Austin DF, Sheppard BC, Mori M, Shipley DK, Billingsley KG. Evolving preoperative evaluation of patients with pancreatic cancer:
does laparoscopy have a role in the current era?. J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Jan. 208 (1):87-95. [Medline].
27 Carboni F, Federici O, Giofrè M, Valle M. An 18-Year Experience in Diagnostic Laparoscopy of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Results from 744
Patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019 Aug 20. [Medline].
28 de Graaf GW, Ayantunde AA, Parsons SL, Duffy JP, Welch NT. The role of staging laparoscopy in oesophagogastric cancers. Eur J Surg Oncol.
2007 Oct. 33 (8):988-92. [Medline].
29 Chua YJ, Cunningham D. The UK NCRI MAGIC trial of perioperative chemotherapy in resectable gastric cancer: implications for clinical
practice. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Oct. 14 (10):2687-90. [Medline].
30 Mirza A, Galloway S. Laparoscopy, computerised tomography and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of
gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction cancers. Surg Endosc. 2016 Jul. 30 (7):2690-6. [Medline].

31 Fukagawa T. Role of staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer patients. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2019 Sep. 3 (5):496-505. [Medline].
32 Kodera Y, Fujiwara M, Ohashi N, Nakayama G, Koike M, Morita S, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: a collective review with
meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Nov. 211 (5):677-86. [Medline].
33 Kim HJ, D'Angelica M, Hiotis SP, Shoup M, Weber SM. Laparoscopic staging for liver, biliary, pancreas, and gastric cancer. Curr Probl Surg.
2007 Apr. 44 (4):228-69. [Medline].
34 Ballehaninna UK, Chamberlain RS. Serum CA 19-9 as a Biomarker for Pancreatic Cancer-A Comprehensive Review. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2011
Jun. 2 (2):88-100. [Medline].
35 Hariharan D, Constantinides VA, Froeling FE, Tekkis PP, Kocher HM. The role of laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound in the preoperative
staging of pancreatico-biliary cancers--A meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010 Oct. 36 (10):941-8. [Medline].
36 Sell NM, Fong ZV, Del Castillo CF, Qadan M, Warshaw AL, Chang D, et al. Staging Laparoscopy Not Only Saves Patients an Incision, But May
Also Help Them Live Longer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Apr. 25 (4):1009-1016. [Medline].
37 Bird N, Elmasry M, Jones R, Elniel M, Kelly M, Palmer D, et al. Role of staging laparoscopy in the stratification of patients with perihilar
cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2017 Mar. 104 (4):418-425. [Medline].
38 Tian Y, Liu L, Yeolkar NV, Shen F, Li J, He Z. Diagnostic role of staging laparoscopy in a subset of biliary cancers: a meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg.
2017 Jan. 87 (1-2):22-27. [Medline].
39 Russolillo N, D'Eletto M, Langella S, Perotti S, Lo Tesoriere R, Forchino F, et al. Role of laparoscopic ultrasound during diagnostic laparoscopy
for proximal biliary cancers: a single series of 100 patients. Surg Endosc. 2016 Mar. 30 (3):1212-8. [Medline].
40 Walsh RM, Heniford BT. Role of laparoscopy for Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Semin Surg Oncol. 1999 Jun. 16 (4):284-92.
[Medline].

41 Lefor AT. Laparoscopic interventions in lymphoma management. Semin Laparosc Surg. 2000 Jun. 7 (2):129-39. [Medline].
42 Gerges FJ, Kanazi GE, Jabbour-Khoury SI. Anesthesia for laparoscopy: a review. J Clin Anesth. 2006 Feb. 18 (1):67-78. [Medline].
43 Sultan RC, Johnson KC, Ankem MK, Barone JG. Laparoendoscopic single site orchiopexy. J Pediatr Surg. 2011 Feb. 46 (2):421-3. [Medline].
44 Göçmen A, Atak T. Diagnostic laparoscopy findings in unexplained infertility cases. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2012. 39 (4):452-3. [Medline].
45 Henny CP, Hofland J. Laparoscopic surgery: pitfalls due to anesthesia, positioning, and pneumoperitoneum. Surg Endosc. 2005 Sep. 19
(9):1163-71. [Medline].
46 [Guideline] Neudecker J, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E, Bergamaschi R, Bonjer HJ, Cuschieri A, et al. The European Association for Endoscopic
Surgery clinical practice guideline on the pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2002 Jul. 16 (7):1121-43. [Medline].
47 Perunovic RM, Scepanovic RP, Stevanovic PD, Ceranic MS. Complications during the establishment of laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum. J
Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009 Feb. 19 (1):1-6. [Medline].
48 Döbrönte Z, Wittmann T, Karácsony G. Rapid development of malignant metastases in the abdominal wall after laparoscopy. Endoscopy.
1978 May. 10 (2):127-30. [Medline].
49 Pearlstone DB, Mansfield PF, Curley SA, Kumparatana M, Cook P, Feig BW. Laparoscopy in 533 patients with abdominal malignancy. Surgery.
1999 Jan. 125 (1):67-72. [Medline].
50 Shoup M, Brennan MF, Karpeh MS, Gillern SM, McMahon RL, Conlon KC. Port site metastasis after diagnostic laparoscopy for upper
gastrointestinal tract malignancies: an uncommon entity. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002 Aug. 9 (7):632-6. [Medline].

diagnostic laparoscopy for different surgical conditions

More Related Content

Similar to diagnostic laparoscopy for different surgical conditions

Recently uploaded

diagnostic laparoscopy for different surgical conditions