Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic vs laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery (LapRas): Rationale and protocol for a patient-level analysis of LAS VEGAS and AVATaR

  • S. C. Serafini*
  • , S. N. T. Hemmes
  • , A. Serpa Neto
  • , M. J. Schultz
  • , E. Tschernko
  • , M. Gama de Abreu
  • , LAS VEGAS — and the AVATaR — investigators
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • University of Genoa
  • Huisarts, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Nederland
  • Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital
  • Monash University
  • University of Melbourne
  • Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein
  • Medical University of Vienna
  • Cleveland Clinic Foundation
  • Hospital Universitario La Fe
  • University of Valencia
  • San Martino Hospital Genoa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleProfessional

31 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Introduction: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) vary in different surgical techniques. We aim to compare the incidence of PPCs after laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery. Methods and analysis: LapRas (Risk Factors for PPCs in Laparoscopic Non-Robotic vs Laparoscopic Robotic Abdominal Surgery) analyses harmonized data from two observational studies on abdominal surgery patients and PPCs: Local ASsessment of VEntilatory management during General Anaesthesia for Surgery (LAS VEGAS), and Assessment of Ventilation during general AnesThesia for Robotic surgery (AVATaR). The primary endpoint is the occurrence of one or more PPC within the first five postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include the occurrence of each individual PPC, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Logistic regression models will be used to identify risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery. We will investigate whether differences in the occurrence of PPCs between the groups are driven by differences in duration of anaesthesia and/or the intensity of mechanical ventilation. Ethics and dissemination: This analysis will address a clinically relevant research question by comparing laparoscopic and robotic surgery. No additional ethical committee approval is required for this meta-analysis. Data will be shared with the scientific community in the form of abstracts and original articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals. Registration: The registration of this post-hoc analysis is pending; individual studies that were merged into the study database were registered at clinicaltrials.gov: LAS VEGAS with identifier NCT01601223, AVATaR with identifier NCT02989415.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)592-600
Number of pages9
JournalRevista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion
Volume71
Issue number8
Early online date2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2024

Keywords

  • Driving pressure
  • Laparoscopic surgery
  • Mechanical power
  • Mechanical power of ventilation
  • Operating room
  • Robotic surgery
  • Ventilation
  • Ventilation intensity

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic vs laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery (LapRas): Rationale and protocol for a patient-level analysis of LAS VEGAS and AVATaR'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this