Newly Published
Correspondence  |   July 2020
Distribution of Ventilation in Pneumoperitoneum: Comment
Author Notes
  • All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India. nishantsahay@gmail.com
  • This letter was sent to the author of the original article referenced above, who declined to respond.—Evan D. Kharasch, M.D., Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief.
    This letter was sent to the author of the original article referenced above, who declined to respond.—Evan D. Kharasch, M.D., Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief.×
  • Accepted for publication June 23, 2020.
    Accepted for publication June 23, 2020.×
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   July 2020
Distribution of Ventilation in Pneumoperitoneum: Comment
Anesthesiology Newly Published on July 14, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000003474
Anesthesiology Newly Published on July 14, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000003474
We read with great interest a very informative and well-conducted study by Shono et al. titled “Positive End-expiratory Pressure and Distribution of Ventilation in Pneumoperitoneum Combined with Steep Trendelenburg Position” published in the Journal.1  The study has objectively shown that application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 15 cm H2O resulted in more homogeneous ventilation and favorable pulmonary physiologic effects during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, but did not improve postoperative lung function. Whereas that authors have focused on the beneficial pulmonary effects of high PEEP values, the article would benefit readers considerably if the authors could address its potential ill effects on some other organ systems.