PURPOSE: Transoral endoscopic surgery has been shown to be feasible and safe in both humans and animal models. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transoral and conventional thoracoscopy for thoracic exploration, surgical lung biopsy, and pericardial window creation. METHODS: The animals (n = 20) were randomly assigned to the transoral endoscopic approach group (n = 10) or conventional thoracoscopic approach group (n = 10). Transoral thoracoscopy was performed with a flexible bronchoscope via an incision over the vestibulum oris. In conventional thoracoscopy, access to the thoracic cavity was obtained through a thoracic incision. Surgical outcomes (body weight, operating time, operative complications, and time to resumption of normal diet), physiologic parameters (respiratory rate, body temperature), inflammatory parameters [white blood cell (WBC) counts and C-reactive protein (CRP)], and pulmonary parameters (arterial blood gases) were compared for both procedures. RESULTS: The surgical lung biopsy and pericardial window creation were successfully performed in all animals except one animal in the transoral group. There was no significant difference in operating times between the groups. The increase in WBC in the transoral thoracoscopy group was significantly smaller on postoperative day 1 than in the conventional thoracoscopy group (p = 0.0029). The transoral group had an earlier return to preoperative body temperature (p = 0.041) and respiratory rate (p = 0.045) on day 7. With respect to pulmonary parameters, there was no significant difference in blood pH, pCO2, or PaCO2 between the transoral and transthoracic groups. All animals survived without complications 14 days after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the transoral approach was comparable to conventional thoracoscopic surgery for lung biopsy and pericardial window creation in terms of safety and efficacy.
PURPOSE: Transoral endoscopic surgery has been shown to be feasible and safe in both humans and animal models. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transoral and conventional thoracoscopy for thoracic exploration, surgical lung biopsy, and pericardial window creation. METHODS: The animals (n = 20) were randomly assigned to the transoral endoscopic approach group (n = 10) or conventional thoracoscopic approach group (n = 10). Transoral thoracoscopy was performed with a flexible bronchoscope via an incision over the vestibulum oris. In conventional thoracoscopy, access to the thoracic cavity was obtained through a thoracic incision. Surgical outcomes (body weight, operating time, operative complications, and time to resumption of normal diet), physiologic parameters (respiratory rate, body temperature), inflammatory parameters [white blood cell (WBC) counts and C-reactive protein (CRP)], and pulmonary parameters (arterial blood gases) were compared for both procedures. RESULTS: The surgical lung biopsy and pericardial window creation were successfully performed in all animals except one animal in the transoral group. There was no significant difference in operating times between the groups. The increase in WBC in the transoral thoracoscopy group was significantly smaller on postoperative day 1 than in the conventional thoracoscopy group (p = 0.0029). The transoral group had an earlier return to preoperative body temperature (p = 0.041) and respiratory rate (p = 0.045) on day 7. With respect to pulmonary parameters, there was no significant difference in blood pH, pCO2, or PaCO2 between the transoral and transthoracic groups. All animals survived without complications 14 days after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the transoral approach was comparable to conventional thoracoscopic surgery for lung biopsy and pericardial window creation in terms of safety and efficacy.
Authors: Anthony N Kalloo; Vikesh K Singh; Sanjay B Jagannath; Hideaki Niiyama; Susan L Hill; Cheryl A Vaughn; Carolyn A Magee; Sergey V Kantsevoy Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: G D De Palma; S Siciliano; P Addeo; F Salvatori; M Persico; S Masone; M Rega; F Maione; E Coppola Bottazzi; E Serrao; M Adamo; G Persico Journal: Minerva Chir Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: S von Delius; D Wilhelm; H Feussner; J Sager; V Becker; T Schuster; A Schneider; R M Schmid; A Meining Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Kazuki Sumiyama; Christopher J Gostout; Elizabeth Rajan; Timothy A Bakken; Mary A Knipschield Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Estêvão Lima; Tiago Henriques-Coelho; Carla Rolanda; José M Pêgo; David Silva; José L Carvalho; Jorge Correia-Pinto Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-05-04 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Vimal K Narula; Jeffrey W Hazey; David B Renton; Kevin M Reavis; Christopher M Paul; Kristen E Hinshaw; Bradley J Needleman; Dean J Mikami; E Christopher Ellison; W Scott Melvin Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-11-20 Impact factor: 4.584