ReviewSurgical endoscopy2011
A review of 130 humans enrolled in transgastric NOTES protocols at a single institution.
Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transvaginal cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Pooled it
- A randomized comparison of laparoscopic, magnetically anchored, and flexible endoscopic cameras in performance and workload between laparoscopic and single-incision surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2012Trial
- International consensus on natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for colorectal cancer.Gastroenterology report · 2019Article
- Risk of infection after iatrogenic perforation of the gut wall? Evaluation of preventive strategies in a randomized controlled animal trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Endoscopic surgery - exploring the modalities.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2015Review
- Euro-NOTES Status Paper: from the concept to clinical practice.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Magnetically anchored camera and percutaneous instruments maintain triangulation and improve cosmesis compared with single-site and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2012Article
- 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
- Transgastric pure-NOTES peritoneoscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography for staging of gastrointestinal cancers: a survival and feasibility study.Surgical endoscopy · 2012Article
- Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery in humans: a review.Minimally invasive surgery · 2012Article
- Development of a pancreatic tumor animal model and evaluation of NOTES tumor enucleation.Surgical endoscopy · 2011Article
- Critical analysis of hot topics in NOTES.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2011Review
- The Second SAGES/ASGE White Paper on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: 5 years of progress.Surgical endoscopy · 2011Article
- Disinfection of the Access Orifice in NOTES: Evaluation of the Evidence Base.Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe methodology of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) has been validated in both human and animal models. Herein is a discussion of our experience gained from the initial 130 patients enrolled in transgastric pre-NOTES and NOTES protocols at our institution.
methodsA retrospective review of our research database was performed for all patients enrolled in NOTES protocols. The infectious risk of a gastrotomy with and without a NOTES procedure was assessed in 100 patients. Eighty patients completed a true NOTES protocol looking at staging, access, and insufflation with select patients evaluating the potential for bacterial contamination of the abdominal compartment.
resultsA total of 130 patients have completed pre-NOTES and NOTES protocols at our institution. We observed no clinically significant contamination of the abdomen secondary to transgastric procedures in 100 patients. Diagnostic transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy (DTEP) was completed in 20 patients with pancreatic head masses and found to have a 95% concordance with laparoscopic exploration for assessment of peritoneal metastases. Blind endoscopic gastrotomy and DTEP were evaluated in 40 patients who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures (LSRYGB) and were found to be safe, reliable, and without a clinically significant risk of contamination. Endoscopic peritoneal insufflation was successfully established and correlated with standard laparoscopic insufflation in 20 patients.
conclusionsTransgastric NOTES is a safe alternative approach to accessing the peritoneal cavity in humans. The risk of bacterial contamination secondary to peroral and transgastric access is clinically insignificant. A device for the facile closure of the gastric defect is the sole factor limiting institution of this methodology as a standalone technique.
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.