Literature DB >> 25159629

Consumer demand for surgical innovation: a systematic review of public perception of NOTES.

Philip H Pucher1, Mikael H Sodergren, Amy C Lord, Julian Teare, Guang-Zhong Yang, Ara Darzi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The full scope of benefits offered by NOTES over traditional laparoscopy, if any, is not yet fully clear. Perceived patient demand for truly "scarless surgery" is often referenced one of the driving factors in the continued development of this relatively new technique. The true scale of patient preference and demand for NOTES as a surgical technique is unknown. This review aims to summarise currently available literature on the topic of patient perceptions of NOTES to guide future development of the technique.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases was performed on 1st Jan 2014. To be considered for inclusion, articles were required to assess and report the perception of NOTES in a sample of laypersons (patients or general public). The primary endpoint assessed was acceptance or preference rates expressed by patients for NOTES procedures. Reasons given for preference or rejection of NOTES were recorded, as well as preferred access routes and any predicting factors of NOTES acceptance.
RESULTS: Initial search returned 1,334 results, resulting in 15 articles included in final data synthesis. These polled a total of 4,420 subjects. Acceptance of NOTES ranged between 41 and 84 %. Compared to a laparoscopic approach, preference rates for NOTES ranged from 0 to 78 %. Reasons for preferring NOTES were largely centred on potentially reduced recovery time, complications (particularly with reference to hernias) and postoperative pain. Improved cosmesis also played a role, but was secondary to the above issues. Overall, study quality was poor.
CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests significant public interest in NOTES and scarless surgery in general. Further research and consideration of differences in public perceptions across regions, countries and cultures are required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25159629     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3769-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  31 in total

1.  ASGE/SAGES Working Group on Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery. October 2005.

Authors:  D Rattner; A Kalloo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Meta-analysis of randomized trials on single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy.

Authors:  Stavros A Antoniou; Oliver O Koch; George A Antoniou; Konstantinos Lasithiotakis; George E Chalkiadakis; Rudolph Pointner; Frank A Granderath
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES): patients' perceptions and attitudes.

Authors:  Wen Li; Hong Xu; Zi-Kai Wang; Zhi-Ning Fan; Shan-Duo Ba; Duo-Wu Zou; Xu Ren; Bing Hu; Yong-Hui Huang; Ming-Jun Sun; Jie Liu; Wen Li; Ping Xu; Qi Zhu; Si-De Liu; Jian-Guo Xiao
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-06-25       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Transvaginal ultrasound-guided radiofrequency myolysis for uterine myomas.

Authors:  Chung-Hoon Kim; So-Ra Kim; Hyang-Ah Lee; Sung-Hoon Kim; Hee-Dong Chae; Byung-Moon Kang
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2011-01-07       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  Female population perception of conventional laparoscopy, transumbilical LESS, and transvaginal NOTES for cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Pascal Bucher; Sandrine Ostermann; François Pugin; Philippe Morel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-02-08       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Women's positive perception of transvaginal NOTES surgery.

Authors:  Carrie Y Peterson; Sonia Ramamoorthy; Barbara Andrews; Santiago Horgan; Mark Talamini; Alana Chock
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-12-05       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Perception of preference and risk-taking in laparoscopy, transgastric, and rigid-hybrid transvaginal NOTES for cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Michael C Sulz; Andreas Zerz; Markus Sagmeister; Thomas Roll; Christa Meyenberger
Journal:  Swiss Med Wkly       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 2.193

8.  Disinfection of the Access Orifice in NOTES: Evaluation of the Evidence Base.

Authors:  Mikael H Sodergren; Philip Pucher; James Clark; David R C James; Jenny Sockett; Nagy Matar; Julian Teare; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi
Journal:  Diagn Ther Endosc       Date:  2011-07-12

9.  A catalog of biases in questionnaires.

Authors:  Bernard C K Choi; Anita W P Pak
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  Patient perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in an endoscopy screening program in Korea.

Authors:  Min-Chan Kim; Ki-Han Kim; Jin-Seok Jang; Hyuk-Chan Kwon; Byoung-Gwon Kim; David W Rattner
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.759

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  [Minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgery: surgery 4.0?].

Authors:  H Feußner; D Wilhelm
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  [NOTES in visceral surgery : Current status].

Authors:  G Kähler
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 0.955

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.