BACKGROUND: Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has generated a surge of enthusiasm among researchers by virtue of its challenge to the dogma and potential benefits. However, no data is available in the medical literature about NOTES' acceptance by patients in Asia. The aim of the study is to survey patients' perceptions and attitudes towards NOTES. METHODS: It is a questionnaire-based multi-center study on inpatient subjects with various gastrointestinal disorders from 14 hospitals in 12 cities of China. Procedural details with the benefits and risks of NOTES, laparoscopic surgery, and conventional surgery were explained to all registered candidates. They were required to choose and cite reasons for adopting one of the above three surgical techniques as the preferred mode of treatment. The reasons for selection of the surgical treatment were: safety, efficacy, cost, postoperative pain, abdominal wounds, and scarring. RESULTS: There were 1,797 cases, including 976 (54.3%) males and 821 females (45.7%). Based on their comprehension of the procedure, 802 (44.6%) patients opted for NOTES, 757 (42.1%) for laparoscopic surgery, and 238 (13.2%) for conventional surgery. NOTES was mainly selected by the young and educated persons, especially females and by those with past exposure to laparoscopy or conventional surgery. The choice of treatment was significantly correlated with age (P=0.0021), education (P=0.0209), past medical history (laparoscopy, P=0.0134; open surgery, P<0.0001), and department of admission (P=0.0173). The preference for NOTES was based on safety (37.3%), cost (17.6%), elimination of postoperative scars (16.1%), abdominal wounds (16.0%), and efficacy (13.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of patients prefer mini-invasive surgery to conventional surgery. The potential recipients of NOTES are educated and younger age groups. However, a few consider NOTES as a safe and effective intervention at present.
BACKGROUND: Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has generated a surge of enthusiasm among researchers by virtue of its challenge to the dogma and potential benefits. However, no data is available in the medical literature about NOTES' acceptance by patients in Asia. The aim of the study is to survey patients' perceptions and attitudes towards NOTES. METHODS: It is a questionnaire-based multi-center study on inpatient subjects with various gastrointestinal disorders from 14 hospitals in 12 cities of China. Procedural details with the benefits and risks of NOTES, laparoscopic surgery, and conventional surgery were explained to all registered candidates. They were required to choose and cite reasons for adopting one of the above three surgical techniques as the preferred mode of treatment. The reasons for selection of the surgical treatment were: safety, efficacy, cost, postoperative pain, abdominal wounds, and scarring. RESULTS: There were 1,797 cases, including 976 (54.3%) males and 821 females (45.7%). Based on their comprehension of the procedure, 802 (44.6%) patients opted for NOTES, 757 (42.1%) for laparoscopic surgery, and 238 (13.2%) for conventional surgery. NOTES was mainly selected by the young and educated persons, especially females and by those with past exposure to laparoscopy or conventional surgery. The choice of treatment was significantly correlated with age (P=0.0021), education (P=0.0209), past medical history (laparoscopy, P=0.0134; open surgery, P<0.0001), and department of admission (P=0.0173). The preference for NOTES was based on safety (37.3%), cost (17.6%), elimination of postoperative scars (16.1%), abdominal wounds (16.0%), and efficacy (13.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of patients prefer mini-invasive surgery to conventional surgery. The potential recipients of NOTES are educated and younger age groups. However, a few consider NOTES as a safe and effective intervention at present.
Authors: S V Kantsevoy; B Hu; S B Jagannath; C A Vaughn; D M Beitler; S S C Chung; P B Cotton; C J Gostout; R H Hawes; P J Pasricha; C A Magee; L J Pipitone; M A Talamini; A N Kalloo Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-01-21 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: D J Bowrey; D Blom; P F Crookes; C G Bremner; J L Johansson; R V Lord; J A Hagen; S R DeMeester; T R DeMeester; J H Peters Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2001-05-11 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jeffrey W Hazey; Vimal K Narula; David B Renton; Kevin M Reavis; Christopher M Paul; Kristen E Hinshaw; Peter Muscarella; E Christopher Ellison; W Scott Melvin Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-08-14 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: A Gil-Cárdenas; C Cordón; R Gamino; J A Rull; F Gómez-Pérez; J P Pantoja; M F Herrera Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-08-19 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Alberto Breda; Antonio Finelli; Gunter Janetschek; Francesco Porpiglia; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 20.096
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