ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013
Evaluation of bacterial contamination after "pure" (totally) transvaginal NOTES diagnostic peritoneoscopy with biopsies in swine: a comparative study with laparoscopy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transvaginal specimen removal in minimally invasive surgery.World journal of urology · 2016Review
- Hybrid NOTES transvaginal intraperitoneal onlay mesh in abdominal wall hernias: an alternative to traditional laparoscopic procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
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
introductionBacterial contamination from viscerotomy is a barrier to natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). The aim of this survival study is to evaluate pure (totally) transvaginal NOTES bacterial contamination compared with laparoscopy in pigs.
methodsTwelve adult female pigs underwent peritoneoscopy with liver and peritoneal biopsies, using either laparoscopy (Glap, six animals) or pure transvaginal (GNOTES) access, and were maintained alive for 7 days. In all animals, blood cultures were taken at baseline, and after 24 h and 7 days postoperatively. Swab cultures from vagina (GNOTES) and skin (Glap) were obtained pre- and post-antisepsis. Peritoneal fluid culture was obtained at necropsy. For statistical analysis, Glap and GNOTES were compared for presence of positive bacterial cultures (qualitative bacterial analysis) using Fisher's test, with level of significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsAll animals had good postoperative outcome. One animal had transient perioperative bleeding from a transvaginal access. Two animals in Glap and one in GNOTES had positive blood cultures after the procedure. All animals from GNOTES and Glap presented with mixed flora pre-antisepsis. After antisepsis, one animal (GNOTES) presented with a positive vaginal swab culture (a single bacterial strain was identified). There was no positive skin swab culture in Glap. There were no signs of intra-abdominal infection at necropsy. In two animals, one from Glap and another from GNOTES, intra-abdominal culture was positive for Corynebacterium spp. and Escherichia coli, respectively. There was no correlation between the bacterial flora found at the access site and in the peritoneal cultures.
conclusionsPure transvaginal peritoneoscopy with liver and peritoneal biopsy in swine is feasible and associated with bacterial contamination comparable to laparoscopy. Peritoneal bacterial contamination was clinically insignificant after 1 week postoperatively. Preoperative antisepsis provided significant reduction of bacterial load prior to transvaginal and laparoscopic 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.