ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012
Deep sedation in natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a comparative study with dogs.
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.
- Electroencephalographic and Cardiovascular Changes Associated with Propofol Constant Rate of Infusion Anesthesia in Young Healthy Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Advancing frontiers in anaesthesiology with laparoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has been mostly performed with the animal under general and inhalational anesthesia (IA-NOTES). To date, NOTES using propofol sedation (PS-NOTES) has not been investigated. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of PS-NOTES for transgastric oophorectomy with carbon dioxide insufflation and to compare its success rates with those of conventional IA-NOTES.
methodsIn this prospective randomized study, NOTES oophorectomy was performed for 19 female dogs randomized to two conditions: PS (study group) and IA (control group). Sedation success rates (ability to visualize and resect ovaries without converting to IA), operative success rates (ability to resect and retrieve both ovaries in full using only NOTES), and vital parameters including hemodynamic and respiratory changes were documented.
resultsIn the PS-NOTES group (n = 9), the sedation success rate was 100 %. The operative success rate was 67 % (6 of 9 animals) compared with 80 % (8 of 10 animals) in the IA-NOTES group. No purposeful movement occurred during surgical manipulation and no respiratory or cardiovascular complications in occurred the PS group. Heart rate (HR) and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO(2)) were significantly higher in the PS group than in the IA group. Blood pressure (BP) was significantly higher in the PS group only during the middle part of the procedure. Only mild respiratory depression was noted in the PS group, as indicated by elevated but acceptable ETCO(2). Elevations in BP and HR are thought to be related to elevated CO(2) but did not appear to have an adverse impact on the course of the procedure. Recovery was uneventful for all the animals.
conclusionThe use of PS-NOTES appears to be feasible, resulting in outcomes comparable with those for IA in dogs. Further studies are needed to determine the applicability of this concept in human NOTES.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22580877What 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.