ArticleWideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques2013
NOTES. Study on patients' perspective.
Article in Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 2013. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selected oxidative stress markers in gynecological laparoscopy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2015Article
- Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acalculous cholecystitis in a neutropenic patient after chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2014Article
- Cholecystectomy after breast reconstruction with a pedicled autologous tram flap. Types of surgical access.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRapid development of minimally invasive surgery has led to escalation of the demands placed on health care professionals. Nowadays the patient is the one to choose where and how she/he wants to be operated on. Perioperative and postoperative quality of life is the most common item impacting the patients' choice. Laparoscopic surgery is undoubtedly advantageous in several applications; however a further improvement of medical services has been introduced: the NOTES technique. This novel surgical approach definitively eliminates the problem of having scars. Though NOTES is still in the clinical trial stage, it might become an alternative for selected procedures soon. At this point it is necessary to define the patients' expectations and preferences.
aimTo evaluate patients' opinions on the four surgical approaches: open, laparoscopic, transvaginal and transgastric. MATERIAL AND
methodsFor this purpose a special questionnaire was designed and one hundred randomly selected women were asked to complete it.
resultsThe laparoscopic access was preferable in most aspects, closely followed by the transvaginal access. Open and transgastric approaches were considered as dangerous and disadvantageous.
conclusionsCurrently NOTES is a possible reality of tomorrow for some procedures. The transvaginal access was scored as "attractive", "cosmetically attractive" and "technologically advanced", as opposed to the transgastric access. The fact of manipulation in the intimate region requires thorough attention in future NOTES studies. Though the patients currently prefer the laparoscopic approach, this study proves that further development of transvaginal NOTES technology is acceptable and to some extent desired by the 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.