ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012
No-incision (NOTES) versus single-incision (single-port) surgery for access to sites of peritoneal carcinomatosis: a back-to-back animal study.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-incision flexible endoscopy (SIFE) for detection and staging of peritoneal carcinomatosis.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Flexible versus rigid single-port peritoneoscopy: a randomized controlled trial in a live porcine model followed by initial experience in human cadavers.Surgical endoscopy · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative radiological diagnosis and evaluation of limited peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is suboptimal. Triangle laparoscopy is considered a noncarcinologic option due to the risk of tumoral spreading through the lateral ports into the abdominal wall muscles. Open surgery is therefore often needed to characterize PC. A minimally invasive approach would be progress.
methodsWe aimed to compare access rates to elective sites of PC using natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) with those using single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS). Sixteen acute experiments were performed in a live porcine model. Back-to-back NOTES and SPLS standardized peritoneoscopy were conducted in a cross-over design. Access rates to 11 elective sites of PC were considered as end points based on operators' consensus and necropsy verification.
resultsAccess to the targets was successful in 89 % with NOTES and 80 % with SPLS (p = 0.27). NOTES and SPLS achieved a 100 % access rate to the diaphragmatic domes and paracolic gutters, to the splenic area, to the pelvic floor, and to the trigonal bladder (p > 0.99). Access rates of NOTES versus SPLS to other elective sites of PC were the following: mesentery root (94 % vs. 0 %, p < 0.001), inferior mesenteric vein origin (88 % vs. 0 %, p < 0.001), inferior vena cava (88 % vs. 75 %, p = 0.85), and hepatic pedicle (8 % vs. 100 %, p < 0.001).
conclusionsBoth transgastric NOTES and SPLS provided quick and easy access to most elective sites of PC, except for the mesenteric vessel root (better achieved by NOTES) and the hepatic pedicle (better achieved by SPLS). Both techniques could be improved or combined to overcome their specific drawbacks.
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.