Randomized controlled trial evaluates driving pressure-guided PEEP on lung function during surgery, suggesting benefits for ventilation.
Background: Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) with pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg positioning impairs ventilation and increases the risk of pulmonary complications. Although positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may reduce atelectasis, the optimal levels remain unclear. This study evaluated the effects of driving pressure (DP)-guided PEEP titration on patients undergoing RALP.Methods: This single-center, randomized controlled trial enrolled adults undergoing RALP (American Society of Anesthesiologists < 3, without pulmonary disease) for either DP minimization-guided individualized PEEP (DP group) or fixed 5 cmH2O PEEP (control). DP was calculated as the plateau pressure minus PEEP, with individualized PEEP determined using decremental titration. Atelectasis was quantified using modified lung ultrasound score (LUS), incorporating B-lines and consolidations. Primary outcome was LUS at end-Trendelenburg. Secondary outcomes included oxygenation and pulmonary complications.Results: Of 101 assessed, 63 completed analysis. The DP group (n=31) received individualized PEEP (median 8.0 cmH2O during Trendelenburg) vs. 5.0 cmH2O in controls (n=32). Mean DP was lower in the DP group during Trendelenburg (19.0 ± 3.4 vs. 21.3 ± 4.7 cmH2O, P=0.035). LUS were significantly lower in the DP group at the end-Trendelenburg (median [1Q, 3Q]: 9.0 [8.0, 11.5] vs. 11.0 [9.0, 13.0]; median difference, −2.0 [95% confidence interval, −3.5 to −0.2]; P=0.031) and recovery (9.0 vs. 13.5, P<0.001). Intraoperative PaO2 was higher in the DP group (154.6 ± 33.1 vs. 133.3 ± 34.7 mmHg, P=0.015 during Trendelenburg). No differences were observed in postoperative complications or hospital stay.Conclusions: DP-guided PEEP titration during RALP reduced continuous lung de-aeration burden assessed by modified LUS, though benefits did not translate to reduced postoperative pulmonary complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cho et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: