Prospective, randomized comparison of the use of FloShield Air System® versus the reference technique (water + povidone-iodine solution) during gynecologic endoscopic surgery to evaluate the operative lens vision quality
The FloShield Air System® is a new device for laparoscopic surgery that utilizes a continuous dry CO2 gas flow over the scope to defog the lens and protect it from condensation, debris and smoke. We set out to compare the performance and efficiency of the device in terms of operative lens vision quality (OLVQ) with the reference technique (water + povidone-iodine (PVI) solution) during gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.
Materials and methods
We conducted a single-center randomized prospective study between March and June 2016 (Trials Database Registration NCT02702531) including 53 patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery with water + PVI solution and 51 patients who underwent surgical procedures with the FloShield Air System.
The primary outcome measure was the number of laparoscope removals during surgery. Secondary outcome measures were the time to clean, assessment of the quality of vision, the correlation between the laparoscopic surgical complexity and outcomes, and cost effectiveness.
Overall, the mean patient age was 43.2 years (range 22–86) and body mass index 24.8 (range 16.8–42.7). The mean number of endoscope removals during surgery was 7.0 (range 0–37) in the water + PVI solution arm and 2.8 (range 0–12) in the FloShield Air System® arm. The number of removals was significantly lower in the FloShield arm (p < 0.001). No difference in time to clean, quality of vision, level of laparoscopic procedure complexity, or cost was observed between the groups.
The FloShield Air System® resulted in fewer laparoscopic lens removals than the water + PVI solution solution, but that there was no difference in quality of vision, cleaning time or cost, especially for the more complex surgery.
KeywordsGynecologic endoscopic surgery Randomized trial Lens vision quality
Compliance with ethical standards
Drs Bendifallah, Salakos, Naoura, Aristizabal, Furet, Zilberman and Prs Ballester, and Darai have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 10.Yong N, Grange P, Eldred-Evans D (2016) Impact of laparoscopic lens contamination in operating theaters: a study on the frequency and duration of lens contamination and commonly utilized techniques to maintain clear vision. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26(4):286–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Mohammadhosseini B (2010) Povidone-iodine surgical scrub solution prevents fogging of the scope’s lens during laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 24(6):1498–1499; author reply 1500Google Scholar
- 17.ITU-T (2000) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Available at: http://www.videoclarity.com/PDF/T-REC-P.910-199909-I!!PDF-E.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2013
- 19.Dexter F, Traub RD (2002) How to schedule elective surgical cases into specific operating rooms to maximize the efficiency of use of operating room time. Anesth Analg 94(4):933–942, table of contentsGoogle Scholar
- 22.World Health Organization (2002) Female sterilization: a guide to provision of services. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar