ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013
Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in the morbidly obese.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Evolution and advances in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2015Review
- Transvaginal hybrid-NOTES appendectomy in routine clinical use: prospective analysis of 13 cases and description of the procedure.Surgical endoscopy · 2014Article
- Anesthetic management of transoral natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: two cases report.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2014Article
- Transvaginal organ extraction: potential for broad clinical application.Surgical endoscopy · 2014Article
- Transvaginal appendectomy in morbidly obese patient.Case reports in surgery · 2014Article
- Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for intra-abdominal emergency conditions.The British journal of surgery · 2014Review
- Transvaginal appendectomy: a systematic review.Minimally invasive surgery · 2014Review
- Laparoscopic-Assisted Transvaginal Cholecystectomy - the US Military Experience With Long-Term Follow Up.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study is to assess the safety and efficacy of transvaginal (TV) natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) operations in morbidly obese patients.
methodsOne hundred seven NOTES operations have been performed at our institution to date, of which 17 were completed in patients with body mass index (BMI) between 35 and 45 kg/m(2). These included 14 cholecystectomies, one appendectomy, and two ventral hernia repairs. The patients had average age of 36.2 years (range 19-62 years) and average BMI of 38.9 kg/m(2) (range 35.2-44.9 kg/m(2)). The mean number of previous abdominal operations was 1. The TV cholecystectomies were hybrid NOTES procedures, while TV appendectomy and ventral hernia repair were pure NOTES. All operations were completed with standard straight laparoscopic instruments.
resultsThe mean operative time was 60 min for cholecystectomy, 41 min for TV appendectomy, and 90 min for ventral hernia repair. No significant difference was encountered between the operative time for NOTES cholecystectomies in obese versus nonobese (60 vs. 61 min, p = 0.86). No conversions to traditional laparoscopy or open surgery were made, and no major complications were encountered.
conclusionsNOTES is an attractive alternative to laparoscopy in female patients with morbid obesity. The procedures are safe and have short operative times, good postoperative outcomes, and improved cosmesis compared with laparoscopy.
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.