Benchtop evaluation of pressure barrier insufflator and standard insufflator systems

Background Previous experimental research has reported minimal differences in pressure maintenance between different versions of standard insufflators (SI). However, a recent report identified potential clinical benefits with a valveless pressure barrier insufflator (PBI). We sought to perform a benchtop objective evaluation of SI and PBI systems. Methods A rigid box system with continuous pressure manometry was used to evaluate a PBI (Surgiquest Airseal) and two SIs (SI1 = Stryker PneumoSure High Flow Insufflator and SI2 = Storz SCB Thermoflator). Pressure maintenance of 15 mmHg was evaluated during experimental conditions of leakage from a 5 mm port site, leakage from a 12 mm port site, and continuous suction. Results With leakage from the 5 mm port site, the PBI maintained pressure of >13 mmHg whereas the pressures dropped moderately with the SI1 (7–13 mmHg) and SI2 insufflators (3–7 mmHg) and did not regain goal pressure until leakage was stopped. With leakage from 12 mm port site, the PBI pressure decreased to 9–11 mmHg, whereas the SI1 and SI2 lost insufflation pressures completely. The PBI maintained pressure of >11 mmHg during continuous suction while the SI1 and SI2 lost pressure entirely, and actually showed negative pressure from air suction into the rigid box system. When evaluated statistically with the mixed model repeated measures ANOVA, the SI1 and SI2 performed similarly while the PBI maintained increased pressure. Conclusions In the experimental rigid box system, the PBI more successfully maintained pressure in response to leakage and suction than SIs.