BACKGROUND: Few studies are available to compare the potential benefits of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) approaches to traditional surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare complications, surgical stress, and postoperative pain. DESIGN: Prospective study in dogs. SETTING: Research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Thirty dogs. INTERVENTIONS: Oophorectomy procedures were performed via NOTES and laparoscopic and traditional open surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Operative time, pain scores, systemic stress parameters (cortisol, glucose), surgical stress markers (interleukin 6, C-reactive protein), 3-day observation. RESULTS: Median operative times were 76, 44, and 35 minutes for the NOTES, laparoscopic, and open procedures, respectively, with the NOTES procedure being significantly longer than the other 2 procedures. All ovaries were completely excised, and all the animals survived without complications. The NOTES animals had greater increases in serum cortisol concentrations at 2 hours but no statistically significant differences in glucose concentrations compared with the other groups. Serum interleukin 6 and C-reactive protein concentrations were significantly increased at specific times compared with baseline in the NOTES group, but not in the open or laparoscopic surgery groups. Based on the cumulative pain score and nociceptive thresholds, the animals in the NOTES group demonstrated less evidence of pain. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, limited follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the NOTES oophorectomy procedures took approximately twice as long and there may be more evidence of tissue damage as judged by increases in serum cortisol and interleukin 6 concentrations, the dogs in the NOTES group had lower pain scores, especially when compared with animals undergoing open surgery. Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Few studies are available to compare the potential benefits of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) approaches to traditional surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare complications, surgical stress, and postoperative pain. DESIGN: Prospective study in dogs. SETTING: Research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Thirty dogs. INTERVENTIONS: Oophorectomy procedures were performed via NOTES and laparoscopic and traditional open surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Operative time, pain scores, systemic stress parameters (cortisol, glucose), surgical stress markers (interleukin 6, C-reactive protein), 3-day observation. RESULTS: Median operative times were 76, 44, and 35 minutes for the NOTES, laparoscopic, and open procedures, respectively, with the NOTES procedure being significantly longer than the other 2 procedures. All ovaries were completely excised, and all the animals survived without complications. The NOTES animals had greater increases in serum cortisol concentrations at 2 hours but no statistically significant differences in glucose concentrations compared with the other groups. Serum interleukin 6 and C-reactive protein concentrations were significantly increased at specific times compared with baseline in the NOTES group, but not in the open or laparoscopic surgery groups. Based on the cumulative pain score and nociceptive thresholds, the animals in the NOTES group demonstrated less evidence of pain. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, limited follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the NOTES oophorectomy procedures took approximately twice as long and there may be more evidence of tissue damage as judged by increases in serum cortisol and interleukin 6 concentrations, the dogs in the NOTES group had lower pain scores, especially when compared with animals undergoing open surgery. Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Francisco M Sánchez-Margallo; Francisco J Pérez; Miguel A Sánchez; Jaime Bachiller; Alvaro Juárez; Alvaro Serrano; María José Ribal; Antonio Alcaraz Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Josiel P Vieira; Marcelo M Linhares; Elesiário M Caetano; Rita M A Moura; Vitor Asseituno; Rogério Fuzyi; Manoel J B Girão; José M Ruano; Alberto Goldenberg; Gaspar de Jesus L Filho; Délcio Matos Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-06-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: 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: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Alireza Haghshenasskashani; Jerome M Laurence; Vu Kwan; Emma Johnston; Michael J Hollands; Arthur J Richardson; Henry C C Pleass; Vincent W T Lam Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Carlos Guarner-Argente; Graciela Martínez-Pallí; Ricard Navarro-Ripoll; Henry Córdova; Mireia Beltrán; M Angels Martínez-Zamora; Jaume Comas; Cristina Rodríguez de Miguel; Antonio Rodríguez-D'Jesús; Xavier Filella; Clara Hernández-Cera; Antonio M Lacy; Christopher C Thompson; Gloria Fernández-Esparrach Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-09-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Mohammad Al-Haddad; Daniel McKenna; Jeff Ko; Stuart Sherman; Don J Selzer; Samer G Mattar; Thomas F Imperiale; Douglas K Rex; Attila Nakeeb; Seong Mok Jeong; Cynthia S Johnson; Lynetta J Freeman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-05-12 Impact factor: 4.584