Advertisement

Intraocular pressure change during laparoscopic sacral colpopexy in patients with normal tension glaucoma

  • Yoji Moriyama
  • Kosei Miwa
  • Tadanori Yamada
  • Ayako Sawaki
  • Yoshinori Nishino
  • Yasuhide Kitagawa
Original Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The steep Trendelenburg position, high pneumoperitoneum pressure, and longer surgical time may lead to significantly increased intraocular pressure (IOP), which could result in unexpected eye disease complications, including perioperative visual loss (POVL). We monitored IOP to induce early laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) safely.

Methods

This prospective study enrolled 39 patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP), including 10 with eye diseases (6 with normal tension glaucoma and 4 with a narrow anterior chamber and normal range IOP). Enrolled patients underwent LSC under the same surgical settings involving a pneumoperitoneum of 10 mmHg and a Trendelenburg position of 15°. We measured IOP at seven time points during surgery and estimated IOP changes with time in patients with or without eye diseases.

Results

All patients, with or without eye diseases, experienced significantly elevated IOP during LSC. There were no significant differences between these groups. The average maximal IOP reached 20 mmHg at the end of surgery, and recovered to baseline values with the patient in the supine position at the end of anesthesia. No patient had an IOP of >40 mmHg as a critical threshold during surgery, and no substantial clinical eye symptoms were seen after LSC.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy using an pneumoperitoneum of 10 mmHg and a Trendelenburg position of 15° during a 3-h surgical period could be performed within a safe range of IOP.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy Intraocular pressure Glaucoma Trendelenburg 

Abbreviations

IOP

Intraocular pressure

LSC

Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy

NAC

Narrow anterior chamber angle

NTG

Normal tension glaucoma

POP

Pelvic organ prolapse

POP-Q

Pelvic organ prolapse quantification

POVL

Perioperative visual loss

RALP

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study won the academic award of the poster presentation at the 11th Japanese Society of POP Surgery (JPOP) annual scientific meeting, 11–12 March 2017, Tokyo, Japan.

The authors acknowledge and thank the following mentors and advisors: Seiichi Era, Hidetoshi Ehara, Hiroki Ito.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

Financial support

None.

Patient consent

Written consent was obtained from the patients included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1089–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(4):360.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gabriel B, Nassif J, Barata S, Wattiez A. Twenty years of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: where are we now? Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(9):1165–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weber ED, Colyer MH, Lesser RL, Subramanian PS. Posterior ischemic optic neuropathy after minimally invasive prostatectomy. J Neuroophthalmol. 2007;27:285–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bui BV, Edmunds B, Cioffi GA, Fortune B. The gradient of retinal functional changes during acute intraocular pressure elevation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:202–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Awad H, Santilli S, Ohr M, Roth A, Yan W, Fernandez S, et al. The effects of steep Trendelenburg positioning on intraocular pressure during robotic radical prostatectomy. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(2):473–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Molloy BL. Implications for postoperative visual loss: steep Trendelenburg position and effects on intraocular pressure. AANA J. 2011;79:115–21.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taketani Y, Mayama C, Suzuki N, Wada A, Oka T, Inamochi K, et al. Transient but significant visual field defects after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in deep Trendelenburg position. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0123361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoshikawa Y, Tsutsumi N, Ohkoshi K, Serizawa S, Hamada M, Inagaki K, et al. The effect of steep Trendelenburg positioning on intraocular pressure and visual function during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(3):305–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iwase A, Suzuki Y, Araie M, Yamamoto T, Abe H, Shirato S, et al. The prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in Japanese: the Tajimi study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1641–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yamamoto T, Iwase A, Araie M, Suzuki Y, Abe H, Shirato S, et al. The Tajimi study report 2: prevalence of primary angle closure and secondary glaucoma in a Japanese population. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:1661–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kla KM, Lee LA. Perioperative visual loss. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2016;30:69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Acute Pain Management. Practice guidelines for acute pain management in the perioperative setting: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on acute pain management. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:248–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wattiez A, Boughizane S, Alexandre F, Canis M, Mage G, Pouly JL, et al. Laparoscopic procedures for stress incontinence and prolapse. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1995;7:317–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vandendriessche D, Sussfeld J, Giraudet G, Lucot JP, Behal H, Cosson M. Complications and reoperations after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a mean follow-up of 4 years. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:231–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pinkney TD, King AJ, Walter C, Wilson TR, Maxwell-Armstrong C, Acheson AG. Raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and perioperative visual loss in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a catastrophe waiting to happen? A systematic review of evidence from other surgical specialities. Tech Coloproctol. 2012;16(5):331–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shen Y, Drum M, Roth S. The prevalence of perioperative visual loss in the United States: a 10-year study from 1996 to 2005 of spinal, orthopedic, cardiac, and general surgery. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:1534–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stoffelns BM. Decreased visual acuity and loss of field of vision after inguinal hernia surgery. Ophthalmologe. 2009;106:448–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mizrahi H, Hugkulstone CE, Vyakarnam P, Parker MC. Bilateral ischaemic optic neuropathy following laparoscopic proctocolectomy: a case report. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011;93:e53–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Molloy B. A preventive intervention for rising intraocular pressure: development of the Molloy/Bridgeport anesthesia associates observation scale. AANA J. 2012;80(3):213–22.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grosso A, Scozzari G, Bert F, Mabilia MA, Siliquini R, Morino M. Intraocular pressure variation during colorectal laparoscopic surgery: standard pneumoperitoneum leads to reversible elevation in intraocular pressure. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(9):3370–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lentschener C, Benhamou D, Niessen F, Mercier FJ, Fernandez H. Intra-ocular pressure changes during gynaecological laparoscopy. Anaesthesia. 1996;51(12):1106–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hitchings RA. Low tension glaucoma—its place in modern glaucoma practice. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992;76:494–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Molloy B, Watson C. A comparative assessment of intraocular pressure in prolonged steep Trendelenburg position versus level supine position intervention. J Anesthesiol Clin Sci. 2012;1(9):8.  https://doi.org/10.7243/2049-9752-1-9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shihota R, Dada T, Gupta V, Deepak KK, Pandey RM. Narrowing of the anterior chamber angle during Valsalva maneuver: a possible mechanism for angle closure. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2006;16(1):81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology and Urogynecology CenterJapanese Red Cross Gifu HospitalGifu CityJapan
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiaJapanese Red Cross Gifu HospitalGifuJapan
  3. 3.Department of OphthalmologyJapanese Red Cross Gifu HospitalGifuJapan
  4. 4.Nishino-ClinicGifuJapan
  5. 5.Department of UrologyKomatsu Municipal HospitalIshikawaJapan

Personalised recommendations