ArticleSurgical endoscopy2010
The diagnostic efficacy of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: is there a role in the intensive care unit?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A state of the art review and categorization of multi-branched instruments for NOTES and SILS.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation of a potential source for abdominal sepsis in a critically ill patient can be challenging. With flexible endoscopy readily available in this setting, we sought to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of a transgastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) peritoneoscopy vs. laparoscopic exploration in the identification of intra-abdominal pathology in a porcine model.
methodsIn this acute study, 15 pigs were randomized to demonstrate 0 to 4 pathologic lesions: small bowel ischemia (SBI), small bowel perforation (SBP), colon perforation (CP), and gangrenous cholecystitis (GC). Two blinded surgical endoscopists were allowed 60 min to perform NOTES or laparoscopy (LAP) to correctly identify or exclude each lesion. A prototype endoscope (R-scope, Olympus, Inc), which enables independent instrument mobility, was used in the NOTES arm.
resultsWhen considering all lesions, LAP was more sensitive diagnostically than NOTES (77.4% vs. 61.3%) overall. LAP also displayed a slightly higher NPV compared with NOTES (79.4% vs. 70.7%). However, NOTES was 100% specific with 100% positive predictive value (PPV) compared with 93.1% and 92.3% with LAP, respectively. Individually, NOTES was found most sensitive with CP identification (87.5%) and least sensitive with SBP (37.5%). The sensitivity of NOTES for SBI and GC was 62.5% and 57.1%, respectively.
conclusionsThe utilization of NOTES as a diagnostic tool may have an important role in the critically ill patient when operative intervention is highly morbid. Although it may be overall inferior diagnostically compared with laparoscopy, a positive identification was highly specific with a strong predictive value. Further investigation addressing an improved small bowel evaluation technique would be beneficial. A human trial of NOTES in the ICU utilizing the current technology would still initially mandate laparoscopic or open surgical confirmation and treatment.
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.