IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0163419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Renal Perfusion and Function during Pneumoperitoneum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Kimberley E Wever
  • Moira H D Bruintjes
  • Michiel C Warlé
  • Carlijn R Hooijmans

Abstract

Both preclinical and clinical studies indicate that raised intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) associated with pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgical procedures can cause renal damage, the severity of which may be influenced by variables such as pressure level and duration. Several of these variables have been investigated in animal studies, but synthesis of all preclinical data has not been performed. This systematic review summarizes all available pre-clinical evidence on this topic, including an assessment of its quality and risk of bias. We performed meta-analysis to assess which aspects of the pneumoperitoneum determine the severity of its adverse effects. A systematic search in two databases identified 55 studies on the effect of pneumoperitoneum on renal function which met our inclusion criteria. There was high heterogeneity between the studies regarding study design, species, sex, pressure and duration of pneumoperitoneum, and type of gas used. Measures to reduce bias were poorly reported, leading to an unclear risk of bias in the majority of studies. Details on randomisation, blinding and a sample size calculation were not reported in ≥80% of the studies. Meta-analysis showed an overall increase in serum creatinine during pneumoperitoneum, and a decrease in urine output and renal blood flow. Subgroup analysis indicated that for serum creatinine, this effect differed between species. Subgroup analysis of pressure level indicated that urine output decreased as IAP level increased. No differences between types of gas were observed. Data were insufficient to reliably assess whether sex or IAP duration modulate the effect of pneumoperitoneum. Four studies assessing long-term effects indicated that serum creatinine normalized ≥24 hours after desufflation of pneumoperitoneum at 15mmHg. We conclude that harmful effects on renal function and perfusion during pneumoperitoneum appear to be robust, but evidence on long-term effects is very limited. The reliability and clinical relevance of these findings for healthy patients and patients at high risk of renal impairment remain uncertain. We emphasize the need for rigorous reporting of preclinical research methodology, which is of vital importance for clinical translation of preclinical data.

Suggested Citation

  • Kimberley E Wever & Moira H D Bruintjes & Michiel C Warlé & Carlijn R Hooijmans, 2016. "Renal Perfusion and Function during Pneumoperitoneum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-25, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0163419
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163419
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163419&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0163419?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simone J Jonker & Theo P Menting & Michiel C Warlé & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga & Kimberley E Wever, 2016. "Preclinical Evidence for the Efficacy of Ischemic Postconditioning against Renal Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Jennifer A Hirst & Jeremy Howick & Jeffrey K Aronson & Nia Roberts & Rafael Perera & Constantinos Koshiaris & Carl Heneghan, 2014. "The Need for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kimberley E Wever & Carlijn R Hooijmans & Niels P Riksen & Thomas B Sterenborg & Emily S Sena & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga & Michiel C Warlé, 2015. "Determinants of the Efficacy of Cardiac Ischemic Preconditioning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Berend O Broeren & Liron S Duraku & Caroline A Hundepool & Erik T Walbeehm & J Michiel Zuidam & Carlijn R Hooijmans & Tim De Jong, 2021. "Nerve recovery from treatment with a vascularized nerve graft compared to an autologous non-vascularized nerve graft in animal models: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Nienke A Hesen & Niels P Riksen & Bart Aalders & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga & Saloua El Messaoudi & Kimberley E Wever, 2017. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of the protective effects of metformin in experimental myocardial infarction," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    4. Tracey L Weissgerber, 2021. "Training early career researchers to use meta-research to improve science: A participant-guided “learn by doing” approach," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(2), pages 1-5, February.
    5. Daniel J Reis & Stephen S Ilardi & Stephanie E W Punt, 2018. "The anxiolytic effect of probiotics: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical and preclinical literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-25, June.
    6. Fala Cramond & Cadi Irvine & Jing Liao & David Howells & Emily Sena & Gillian Currie & Malcolm Macleod, 2016. "Protocol for a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execut," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 315-328, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0163419. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.