Research on Anesthesiology in Laparoscopic Surgery

A special issue of Medicina (ISSN 1648-9144). This special issue belongs to the section "Intensive Care/ Anesthesiology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 August 2026 | Viewed by 1952

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
1. 10th Clinical Department—General Surgery, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
2. Department of General Surgery, “Bagdasar-Arseni” Emergency Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
Interests: oncologic surgery; trauma surgery; hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery, abdominal wall surgery
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor Assistant
General Surgery Department, “Sf. Ioan” Clinical Emergency Hospital, 13 Vitan-Bârzeşti Road, 042122 Bucharest, Romania
Interests: anesthesia; advanced laparoscopic surgery

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor Assistant
1. Scientific Coordinator of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Department, Ponderas Academic Hospital, Nicolae G Caramfil Street 85 A, 014412 Bucharest, Romania
2. Anesthesia and Intensive Care Department, University of Medicine “Titu Maiorescu”, Bucharest, Romania
Interests: airway management; bariatric anesthesia; opioid free anesthesia; multimodal postoperative analgesia; ultrasound guided locoregional anesthesia

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Over the last 40 years, laparoscopic surgery anesthesia has developed and advanced significantly, resulting in a technique minimizing many of the risks, complications, and prolonged duration of hospital stays after open surgery. The proportion of surgical interventions performed laparoscopically continues to increase, and anesthetists must understand and safely manage the risks, specific physiological alterations, and practical challenges that laparoscopy presents.

The laparoscopic (including robotic) approach has become a standard of care for many abdominal or thoracic surgical procedures. Compared to laparotomy, laparoscopy allows for smaller incisions, reduces the perioperative stress response and the postoperative pain, and results in a shorter recovery time. Anesthetic concerns for patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery differ from those for patients undergoing open abdominal surgery. Laparoscopy requires insufflation of intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal gas, usually carbon dioxide (CO2), to create space for visualization and surgical maneuvers. The generation of a pneumoperitoneum, absorption of CO2, and positioning required for surgery induce significant physiological changes in the lungs and heart, which must be evaluated and treated to avoid adverse intra- and postoperative outcomes. Safe anesthetic management, techniques, ventilation, and postoperative care of these patients should be addressed by all anesthetists worldwide.

Importantly, specific groups such as obese and pediatric patients or patients with severe respiratory diseases may benefit from laparoscopic techniques.

Complications may be challenging, and all hospitals undertaking laparoscopic/robotic surgery should have protocols to ensure that staff can recognize and rapidly act upon deteriorating patients after an operation.

Moreover, there is room to explore how digitization and artificial intelligence influence our everyday work, training, personnel deployment, and patient outcomes.

We invite colleagues worldwide to submit their research, reviews, and case reports on any topic related to the anesthetic and postoperative management of patients who have undergone laparoscopic (including robotic) surgery.

Prof. Dr. Valentin Titus Grigorean
Guest Editor

Dr. Mircea Lițescu
Dr. Daniela Godoroja
Guest Editor Assistants

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Medicina is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2200 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • general anesthesia (GA)
  • laparoscopy
  • robotic surgery
  • pneumoperitoneum
  • ventilation
  • position
  • multimodal analgesia
  • postoperative care

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Other

19 pages, 3178 KB  
Systematic Review
Quadratus Lumborum Block Versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
by Abdullah M. Alharran, Waleed Bader Alazemi, Saad A. Alajmi, Yousiff A. Bahman, Osamah Alhajri, Ali A. Alenezi, Jarrah J. Alenezi and Duaij Salman Saif
Medicina 2026, 62(1), 92; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62010092 - 1 Jan 2026
Viewed by 1195
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Effective pain control after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is crucial for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. The transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) provides somatic analgesia but lacks visceral coverage. The quadratus lumborum block (QLB) has emerged as an alternative, [...] Read more.
Background and Objectives: Effective pain control after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is crucial for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. The transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) provides somatic analgesia but lacks visceral coverage. The quadratus lumborum block (QLB) has emerged as an alternative, potentially offering both somatic and visceral blockade, but its superiority is debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of QLB versus TAPB in this setting. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2025. Primary outcomes were 24 h postoperative and intraoperative opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included pain scores, length of hospital stay (LoS), surgery duration, and adverse events. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR) were pooled. Results: Five RCTs involving 520 patients were included. No significant difference was found in 24 h postoperative opioid consumption (SMD: −1.62, 95% CI [−3.45, 0.20]; p = 0.08) or intraoperative opioid consumption (SMD: 0.38, 95% CI [−0.36, 1.12]; p = 0.31). QLB provided better, transient pain relief at rest at 12 h (SMD: −0.30, 95% CI [−0.52, −0.07]; p = 0.01) and during movement at 6 h (SMD: −0.20, 95% CI [−0.49, −0.09]; p = 0.01). No other time points for pain showed significant differences. QLB was associated with a shorter surgery duration (MD: −5.61 min, 95% CI [−10.38, −0.85]; p = 0.02), but not LoS (p = 0.53) or rates of PONV (p = 0.24) or dizziness (p = 0.32). Conclusions: With uncertain evidence, QLB and TAPB showed no significant difference in opioid consumption. QLB demonstrated a statistically significant but transient early analgesic advantage. This heterogeneity may be due to different QLB techniques, warranting further investigation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on Anesthesiology in Laparoscopic Surgery)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop