Comparison of volume controlled ventilation and pressure controlled ventilation in patients undergoing robot-assisted pelvic surgeries: An open-label trial.

Abstract

Background and Aims:Although volume controlled ventilation (VCV) has been the traditional mode of ventilation in robotic surgery, recently pressure controlled ventilation (PCV) has been used more frequently. However, evidence on whether PCV is superior to VCV is still lacking. We intended to compare the effects of VCV and PCV on respiratory mechanics and haemodynamic in patients undergoing robotic surgeries in steep Trendelenburg position.Methods:This prospective, randomized trial was conducted on sixty patients between 20 and 70 years belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologist Physical Status I–II. Patients were randomly assigned to VCV group (n = 30), where VCV mode was maintained through anaesthesia, or the PCV group (n = 30), where ventilation mode was changed to PCV after the establishment of 40° Trendelenburg position and pneumoperitoneum. Respiratory (peak and mean airway pressure [APpeak, APmean], dynamic lung compliance [Cdyn] and arterial blood gas analysis) and haemodynamics variables (heart rate, mean blood pressure [MBP] central venous pressure) were measured at baseline (T1), post-Trendelenburg position at 60 min (T2), 120 min (T3) and after resuming supine position (T4).Results:Demographic profile, haemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation and minute ventilation (MV) were comparable between two groups. Despite similar values of APmean, APpeak was significantly higher in VCV group at T2 and T3 as compared to PCV group (P < 0.001). Cdyn and PaCO2 were also better in PCV group than in VCV group (P < 0.001 and 0.045, respectively).Conclusion:PCV should be preferred in robotic pelvic surgeries as it offers lower airway pressures, greater Cdyn and a better-preserved ventilation-perfusion matching for the same levels of MV.