ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2010
Infection during natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a randomized, controlled study in a live porcine model.
Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral chlorhexidine and microbial contamination during endoscopy: possible implications for transgastric surgery. A randomized, clinical trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Trial
- Freedom to innovate: the story of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery and the endoscopic suturing device.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2025Article
- Risk of infection after iatrogenic perforation of the gut wall? Evaluation of preventive strategies in a randomized controlled animal trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and upper gastrointestinal tract.Journal of gastric cancer · 2013Review
- Transoral endoscopic surgery versus conventional thoracoscopic surgery for thoracic intervention: safety and efficacy in a canine survival model.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Pure natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) with ultrasonography-guided transgastric access and over-the-scope-clip closure: a porcine feasibility and survival study.Surgical endoscopy · 2012Article
- Inflammatory impact of NOTES peritoneoscopy is not different from that of laparoscopy: a randomized comparative study in a survival porcine model.Surgical endoscopy · 2012Article
- Disinfection of the Access Orifice in NOTES: Evaluation of the Evidence Base.Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently reported natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) procedures in animals have been done in heterogeneous milieus ranging from nonsterile to sterile procedures, with mixed results, including no infection in those performed in nonsterile settings.
objectiveTo establish the potential frequency of infection during NOTES, comparing sterile to nonsterile approaches.
settingSurvival experiments on sixteen 50-kg pigs. DESIGN AND
interventionsFrom pilot data (100% infection frequency after nonsterile procedures), sample size (8 animals in each group) was calculated by using a power of 95% and an alpha risk of 0.05. The animals were randomly assigned to two groups: In the transgastric peritoneoscopy study group, liver and ovarian biopsies were performed with sterile overtubes, endoscopes, and accessories and the use of preoperative intravenous antibiotics and antiseptic gastric lavage. In the nonsterile (control) group, the same procedures were performed with nonsterile endoscopes and accessories without the use of gastric lavage and preoperative antibiotics. Complete transmural closure of the transgastric access site was made in all animals. After a 1-week survival time, all animals were killed for necropsy, which included Gram staining and peritoneal cultures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Intraperitoneal infection on necropsy.
resultsAll necropsies revealed intraperitoneal infection (abscesses, fibrinopurulent exudates, and adhesions) in the control group (frequency of infection 100%). Peritoneal bacterial culture grew various aerobic and anaerobic organisms. No gross or bacteriological evidence of infection was seen in the sterile group (frequency of infection 0%, P value = <.0002). LIMITATIONS: Animal experiments.
conclusionNonsterile conditions invariably lead to intraperitoneal infection. Aseptic techniques during NOTES can prevent intra-abdominal infection. Future studies will determine which infection prevention steps are mandatory and which can be omitted during NOTES procedures.
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.