Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20054581›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2010

Diagnostic transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy: extension of the initial human trial for staging of pancreatic head masses.

Peter Nau, Joel Anderson, Benjamin Yuh, Peter Muscarella, E Christopher Ellison, Lynn Happel, Vimal K Narula, W Scott Melvin, Jeffrey W Hazey

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Critical analysis of hot topics in NOTES.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2011
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. [Transesophageal/transgastric access for NOTES].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2010
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peter NauDivision of General Surgery, The Ohio State University School of Medicine and Public Health, 410 West 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210-1228, USA.
Joel Anderson
Benjamin Yuh
Peter Muscarella
E Christopher Ellison
Lynn Happel
Vimal K Narula
W Scott Melvin
Jeffrey W Hazey
The Ohio State University · USTruman Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe validity of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) was confirmed in a human trial of 10 patients undergoing diagnostic transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy (DTEP) for staging of pancreatic head masses. This report is an update with 10 additional patients in the series and includes bacterial contamination data.

methodsThe patients in this human trial were scheduled to undergo diagnostic laparoscopy for abdominal staging of a pancreatic head mass. A second surgeon, blinded to the laparoscopic findings, performed a transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy (TEP). The findings of laparoscopic exploration were compared with that those of the TEP. Diagnostic findings, operative times, and clinical course were recorded. Bacterial contamination data were collected for the second cohort of 10 patients. Bacterial samples were collected from the scope before use and the abdominal cavity before and after creation of the gastrotomy. Samples were assessed for bacterial counts and species identification. Definitive care was rendered based on the findings from laparoscopy.

resultsIn this study, 20 patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy followed by DTEP. The average time for completion of diagnostic laparoscopy was 10 min compared with 21 min for TEP. The experience acquired during the initial 10 procedures translated to a 7-min decrease in TEP time for the second 10 cases. For 19 of the 20 patients, DTEP corroborated laparoscopic findings for surgical decision making. One endoscopic and five laparoscopic biopsies were performed. Pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed for 14 patients and palliative gastrojejunostomy for 6 patients. No cross-contamination of the peritoneum or infectious complications were noted. No significant complications related to either the endoscopic or laparoscopic approach occurred.

conclusionsThis study supports the authors' previous conclusions that the transgastric approach to diagnostic peritoneoscopy is feasible, safe, and accurate. The lack of documented bacterial contamination further supports the use of this technique. Technical issues, including intraabdominal manipulation and gastric closure, require further investigation.

Indexed as

Endoscopes, GastrointestinalAgedBiopsyDiagnosis, DifferentialFeasibility StudiesHumansLaparoscopyMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPancreasPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID20054581
OpenAlexW2119605767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.