BACKGROUND: Natural orifice surgery (NOS) is gaining acceptance as an alternative to the traditional laparoscopic technique, especially for cholecystectomy through the transvaginal route. However, NOS remains controversial concerning expected advantages in terms of short- and long-term outcomes and potential side effects. This study was designed to compare short-term outcomes between transvaginal/transumbilical and classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: A prospective matched-cohort study compared the authors' first 50 transvaginal/transumbilical cholecystectomies (TVC) with a group of 50 classical LCs from the corresponding period matched in terms of age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiology classification. In both groups, elective surgery was performed for symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. In the NOS group, a hybrid procedure was performed with one transumbilical rigid instrument and two transvaginal rigid instruments. A numeric rating scale was used for daily pain assessment, initiated postoperatively in the recovery room. Both groups were compared with regard to length of surgery, intra- and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and consumption of analgesics. RESULTS: The length of surgery and the rate of complications were similar in the two groups. But significant advantages were found for the transvaginal access in terms of pain using Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) on the day of surgery (NRS, 1.5/10 vs 3.1/10; p = 0.003) as well as in the morning (NRS, 1.9/10 vs 2.8/10; p = 0.047) and in the evening (NRS, 1.1/10 vs 1.8/10; p = 0.025) of postoperative day 1, and with regard to the length of the postoperative hospital stay (2.7 vs 3.4 days; p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that TVC is a safe procedure for female patients. It has a risk comparable with that of classic LC, causes significantly less pain in the early postoperative period, and leads to a significantly shorter hospital stay. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm these results.
BACKGROUND: Natural orifice surgery (NOS) is gaining acceptance as an alternative to the traditional laparoscopic technique, especially for cholecystectomy through the transvaginal route. However, NOS remains controversial concerning expected advantages in terms of short- and long-term outcomes and potential side effects. This study was designed to compare short-term outcomes between transvaginal/transumbilical and classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: A prospective matched-cohort study compared the authors' first 50 transvaginal/transumbilical cholecystectomies (TVC) with a group of 50 classical LCs from the corresponding period matched in terms of age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiology classification. In both groups, elective surgery was performed for symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. In the NOS group, a hybrid procedure was performed with one transumbilical rigid instrument and two transvaginal rigid instruments. A numeric rating scale was used for daily pain assessment, initiated postoperatively in the recovery room. Both groups were compared with regard to length of surgery, intra- and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and consumption of analgesics. RESULTS: The length of surgery and the rate of complications were similar in the two groups. But significant advantages were found for the transvaginal access in terms of pain using Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) on the day of surgery (NRS, 1.5/10 vs 3.1/10; p = 0.003) as well as in the morning (NRS, 1.9/10 vs 2.8/10; p = 0.047) and in the evening (NRS, 1.1/10 vs 1.8/10; p = 0.025) of postoperative day 1, and with regard to the length of the postoperative hospital stay (2.7 vs 3.4 days; p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that TVC is a safe procedure for female patients. It has a risk comparable with that of classic LC, causes significantly less pain in the early postoperative period, and leads to a significantly shorter hospital stay. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm these results.
Authors: A Cardoso Ramos; A Murakami; M Galvão Neto; M Santana Galvão; A C Souza Silva; E Gonzalo Canseco; Y Moyses Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: C Zornig; H Mofid; L Siemssen; A Emmermann; M Alm; H-A von Waldenfels; C Felixmüller Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Dirk R Bulian; Jurgen Knuth; Kai S Lehmann; Axel Sauerwald; Markus M Heiss Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Dirk Rolf Bulian; Jurgen Knuth; Nicola Cerasani; Jonas Lange; Michael Alfred Ströhlein; Axel Sauerwald; Markus Maria Heiss Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2014-06-22 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Stephanie G Wood; Feng Dai; Susan Dabu-Bondoc; Hosni Mikhael; Nalini Vadivelu; Andrew Duffy; Kurt E Roberts Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Dirk R Bulian; Linda Trump; Jürgen Knuth; Nicola Cerasani; Markus M Heiss Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 3.445