Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2009
Natural orifice surgery: initial clinical experience.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
71 citing papers in PubMed.
- Study protocol for a multicenter prospective controlled and randomized trial of transanal total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic low anterior resection in rectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Trial
- A randomized controlled trial comparing post-operative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.World journal of surgery · 2015Trial
- Transesophageal endoscopic myotomy (TEEM) for the treatment of achalasia: the United States human experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Trial
- A randomized comparison of laparoscopic, magnetically anchored, and flexible endoscopic cameras in performance and workload between laparoscopic and single-incision surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2012Trial
- Hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective human series.Surgical endoscopy · 2011Trial
- Research progress in the treatment of gallstones with laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery: a narrative review.BMC surgery · 2025Review
- Transvaginal resection of a gastrointestinal stromal tumor of the rectum: a case report.Surgical case reports · 2024Article
- IRIS U kit usefulness in transanal total mesorectal excision for lower rectal cancer to avoid urethral injury.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Review
- Management of advanced prolapse including a bowel obstruction: expanding the role of transvaginal surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Recent advances in third space or intramural endoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Review
- Advances and Trends in Pediatric Minimally Invasive Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Compact teleoperated laparoendoscopic single-site robotic surgical system: Kinematics, control, and operation.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2017Article
- Hybrid NOTES: TEO for transanal total mesorectal excision: intracorporeal resection and anastomosis.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Observational
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Complications in Transvaginal Approach in Laparoscopic Surgery.The Indian journal of surgery · 2015Article
- Clinical NOTES appendectomy study: comparison of transvaginal NOTES appendectomy in hybrid technique with laparoscopic appendectomy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2015Article
- Transvaginal organ extraction: potential for broad clinical application.Surgical endoscopy · 2014Article
- Transvaginal appendectomy: a systematic review.Minimally invasive surgery · 2014Review
- Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for intra-abdominal emergency conditions.The British journal of surgery · 2014Review
- Transrectal robotic natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) applied to intestinal anastomosis in a porcine intestine model.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has moved quickly from preclinical investigation to clinical implementation. However, several major technical problems limit clinical NOTES including safe access, retraction and dissection of the gallbladder, and clipping of key structures. This study aimed to identify challenges and develop solutions for NOTES during the initial clinical experience.
methodsUnder an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved protocol, patients consented to a natural orifice operation for removal of either the gallbladder or the appendix via either the vagina or the stomach using a single umbilical trocar for safety and assistance.
resultsNine transvaginal cholecystectomies, one transgastric appendectomy, and one transvaginal appendectomy have been completed to date. All but one patient were discharged on postoperative day 1 as per protocol. No complications occurred.
conclusionThe limited initial evidence from this study demonstrates that NOTES is feasible and safe. The addition of an umbilical trocar is a bridge allowing safe performance of NOTES procedures until better instruments become available. The addition of a flexible long grasper through the vagina and a flexible operating platform through the stomach has enabled the performance of NOTES in a safe and easily reproducible manner. The use of a uterine manipulator has facilitated visualization of the cul de sac in women with a uterus to allow for safe transvaginal access.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.