ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012
Assessing the invasiveness of NOTES perforated viscus repair: a comparative study of NOTES and laparoscopy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Comparison of Inflammatory Response to Transgastric and Transcolonic NOTES.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2016Article
- Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for intra-abdominal emergency conditions.The British journal of surgery · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) repair of perforated peptic ulcers may decrease surgical invasiveness and improve patient outcomes.
methodsFull thickness gastrotomy was created laparoscopically in swine followed by soilage time. Repair proceeded with a laparoscopic (n = 14) or the NOTES (n = 14) approach. For NOTES repair, the omentum was endoscopically pulled into the gastric lumen and clipped. Intraoperative and postoperative parameters were recorded, including arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis and serum samples for white blood cell (WBC), TNF-α, IL-1, and IL-6 analysis.
resultsTwenty-four of 28 animals thrived to study completion. NOTES repair could not be accomplished in one animal. At necropsy, all repairs were intact. Blood pressure was equivalent between groups. Pulse examined during the last 30 min of each procedure revealed a slightly higher mean pulse in the animals undergoing NOTES procedures (NOTES, 102 ± 28; laparoscopy, 83 ± 24). ABG obtained at the conclusion of the procedure revealed a pH of 7.47 in NOTES animals and 7.43 in the laparoscopy animals (p = 0.06), a change from baseline in both groups. The final pCO(2) was lower in the NOTES group (NOTES, 40.62; laparoscopy, 47.49, p = 0.03). WBC counts were comparable on postoperative day (POD) 1 (NOTES, 21.1; laparoscopy, 19.0; p = 0.49). Mean TNF-α serum levels were equivalent at all time points between groups; however, TNF-α varied significantly from baseline to POD 7 (p = 0.002).
conclusionNOTES omental repair appears comparable to that of laparoscopy. The lower arterial pCO(2) at the conclusion of the NOTES procedure may be advantageous in critically ill patients.
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.