Literature DB >> 18355816

Patient perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery as a technique for cholecystectomy.

Shyam Varadarajulu1, Ashutosh Tamhane, Ernesto R Drelichman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the concept of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) as a minimally invasive surgical technique is gaining increasing popularity, patient perception toward NOTES is unclear. Because cholecystectomy is the most common laparoscopic procedure, the concept of NOTES was examined in this context. AIM: To evaluate patient perception of NOTES as a potential technique for a cholecystectomy. PATIENTS: Those patients with an intact gallbladder who were undergoing an EUS or an ERCP for evaluation of abdominal pain, pancreatitis, or suspected choledocholithiasis.
SETTING: Tertiary-referral center.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.
METHODS: One hundred patients were given a questionnaire that described the technique, the complication rates, and benefits of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The concept of NOTES was then described in detail, with possible orifices being the mouth, the rectum, and the vagina. Patients were queried about their preference for a cholecystectomy technique (LC vs NOTES), choice of orifice, and the risks that they were willing to undergo for NOTES.
RESULTS: Of the 100 patients, 78% preferred NOTES, and 22% preferred LC. The mean age of the patients was 45 years; 36% of patients were men, 70% were white, and 83% had undergone a prior endoscopy; no significant differences were observed between the NOTES and LC groups for these characteristics. In multivariable modeling, those with age </= 50 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.3, P = .61), female sex (OR 2.1, P = .14), and prior endoscopy experience (OR 2.2, P = .19) were more likely to prefer NOTES than an LC. There was no difference in preference for NOTES between whites and nonwhites (OR 1.0, P = .98). The most common reasons for NOTES preference were lack of external pain (99%) and scarring (89%). Among the patients who preferred NOTES, for both men (23/25 [92%]) and women (43/53 [81%]), the oral route was the preferred orifice. A decreasing trend of patient preference for NOTES was observed with increased procedural complications: patient preference was 100% if complications were <3%, 97% if complications were equal to 3%, 15% if complications were 6%, and 6% if complications were 9%. LIMITATIONS: A selective cohort of patients was evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients preferred NOTES to laparoscopy as the technique for cholecystectomy as long as the complication rates were comparable with current standards of LC. The oral orifice appeared to be the preferred approach for most patients. Given this favorable perception, further innovations in NOTES-related technology and refinements in procedural technique are justified.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18355816     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.09.053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  47 in total

1.  Single port access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (with video).

Authors:  D Papagoras; M Kanara; Charilaos Argiropoulos-Rakas; G Tsianos
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: The transvaginal route moving forward from cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Eduardo M Targarona; Edgar Mauricio Maldonado; Jose Antonio Marzol; Franco Marinello
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-06-27

Review 3.  Consumer demand for surgical innovation: a systematic review of public perception of NOTES.

Authors:  Philip H Pucher; Mikael H Sodergren; Amy C Lord; Julian Teare; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer: a single-centre preliminary experience.

Authors:  Dario Pietrasanta; Nicola Romano; Valerio Prosperi; Luca Lorenzetti; Giancarlo Basili; Orlando Goletti
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2010-09-25

Review 5.  A review of 130 humans enrolled in transgastric NOTES protocols at a single institution.

Authors:  Peter Nau; E Christopher Ellison; Peter Muscarella; Dean Mikami; Vimal K Narula; Bradley Needleman; W Scott Melvin; Jeffrey W Hazey
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and transrectal abscess drainage: is this what we are getting into?

Authors:  Lawrence C Hookey
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.522

7.  E-NOTES appendectomy versus transvaginal appendectomy: similar cosmetic results but shorter complete recovery?

Authors:  Pascal Bucher; Sandrine Ostermann; François Pugin; Philippe Morel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-01-30       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  A comprehensive review of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) techniques for cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Ronald Scott Chamberlain; Sujit Vijay Sakpal
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-05-02       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Postoperative pain after transvaginal cholecystectomy: single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Dietmar H Borchert; Matthias Federlein; Frauke Fritze-Büttner; Jens Burghardt; Britta Liersch-Löhn; Yüksel Atas; Verena Müller; Oskar Rückbeil; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Stefan Gräber; Klaus Gellert
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Diagnostic transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy: extension of the initial human trial for staging of pancreatic head masses.

Authors:  Peter Nau; Joel Anderson; Benjamin Yuh; Peter Muscarella; E Christopher Ellison; Lynn Happel; Vimal K Narula; W Scott Melvin; Jeffrey W Hazey
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.