BACKGROUND: If natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) peritoneoscopy is to become an alternative to diagnostic laparoscopy, NOTES peritoneoscopy must be comparable to laparoscopy in its diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of transgastric (TG) and transcolonic (TC) NOTES peritoneoscopy combined with intraperitoneal EUS. DESIGN: Twelve nonsurvival experiments on 6 female pigs. SETTING: Animal laboratory. PATIENTS: Six 35- to 40-kg female pigs. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization was performed to determine the order of approach (TG or TC as first procedure). After peritoneal access, systematic peritoneoscopy was performed according to a preassessed list of 12 locations considered clinically important. For each visualized location, 1 point was scored and 1 point added if it was touched as well, leading to a maximum score of 24 points. Subsequently, the endoscope was exchanged for a linear EUS-scope. The percentage of visualization of the 4 sections of the liver was recorded (0, not visible; 1, 33%; 2, 66%; 3, 100%; maximum score, 12 points). After withdrawal, the protocol was repeated by using the second natural orifice (TG or TC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Extent of adequate visualization of diagnostic peritoneoscopy and intraperitoneal EUS measured by a preassessed record form. RESULTS: Access was achieved without difficulties at all 12 sites. TG peritoneoscopy resulted in a median of 23 points (range 20-24) via the TC approach. A maximum of 24 points was recorded in all pigs (P = .102). TG-EUS resulted in a median of 11 points (range 6-12) and TC-EUS in a median of 12 points (range 8-12) (P = .317). LIMITATION: Lack of objective landmarks for EUS. CONCLUSIONS: TG and TC NOTES peritoneoscopy combined with intraperitoneal EUS is technically feasible. Furthermore, NOTES peritoneoscopy and intraperitoneal EUS seem to result in adequate visualization of the peritoneal cavity and liver, respectively.
BACKGROUND: If natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) peritoneoscopy is to become an alternative to diagnostic laparoscopy, NOTES peritoneoscopy must be comparable to laparoscopy in its diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of transgastric (TG) and transcolonic (TC) NOTES peritoneoscopy combined with intraperitoneal EUS. DESIGN: Twelve nonsurvival experiments on 6 female pigs. SETTING: Animal laboratory. PATIENTS: Six 35- to 40-kg female pigs. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization was performed to determine the order of approach (TG or TC as first procedure). After peritoneal access, systematic peritoneoscopy was performed according to a preassessed list of 12 locations considered clinically important. For each visualized location, 1 point was scored and 1 point added if it was touched as well, leading to a maximum score of 24 points. Subsequently, the endoscope was exchanged for a linear EUS-scope. The percentage of visualization of the 4 sections of the liver was recorded (0, not visible; 1, 33%; 2, 66%; 3, 100%; maximum score, 12 points). After withdrawal, the protocol was repeated by using the second natural orifice (TG or TC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Extent of adequate visualization of diagnostic peritoneoscopy and intraperitoneal EUS measured by a preassessed record form. RESULTS: Access was achieved without difficulties at all 12 sites. TG peritoneoscopy resulted in a median of 23 points (range 20-24) via the TC approach. A maximum of 24 points was recorded in all pigs (P = .102). TG-EUS resulted in a median of 11 points (range 6-12) and TC-EUS in a median of 12 points (range 8-12) (P = .317). LIMITATION: Lack of objective landmarks for EUS. CONCLUSIONS:TG and TC NOTES peritoneoscopy combined with intraperitoneal EUS is technically feasible. Furthermore, NOTES peritoneoscopy and intraperitoneal EUS seem to result in adequate visualization of the peritoneal cavity and liver, respectively.
Authors: Richard C Newton; David P Noonan; Valentina Vitiello; James Clark; Christopher J Payne; Jianzhong Shang; Mikael Sodergren; Ara Darzi; Guang-Zhong Yang Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Elena Dubcenco; Teodor Grantcharov; Frank C S Eng; Catherine J Streutker; Nancy N Baxter; Ori D Rotstein; Jeffrey P Baker Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-10-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Seung Uk Jeong; Hassanuddin Aizan; Tae Jun Song; Dong Wan Seo; Su-Hui Kim; Do Hyun Park; Sang Soo Lee; Sung Koo Lee; Myung-Hwan Kim Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: G Fernández-Esparrach; R San José Estépar; C Guarner-Argente; G Martínez-Pallí; R Navarro; C Rodríguez de Miguel; H Córdova; C C Thompson; A M Lacy; L Donoso; J R Ayuso-Colella; A Ginès; M Pellisé; J Llach; K G Vosburgh Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 10.093