ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015
Randomized trial on the physiologic impact of NOTES.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative cardiovascular response of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoscopy: A comparative animal study.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur previous work revealed significantly less acidosis in swine undergoing natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) using endoscopic air insufflation than swine undergoing standard laparoscopy. We wanted to evaluate the differential effects of CO2 versus intra-abdominal pressure as source for this finding. In addition, we investigated the endocrine stress response between swine undergoing NOTES peritoneoscopy with CO2 insufflation and animals undergoing standard diagnostic laparoscopy with CO2. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-eight (28) female 50-kg domestic pigs were randomly assigned to one of four groups using a permuted block randomization table: Group 1: NOTES using CO2 insufflation, Group 2: NOTES using air insufflation, Group 3: laparoscopy max pressure 12 mmHg and Group 4: laparoscopy with max pressure 7 mmHg. Invasive monitoring lines were placed. Pneumoperitoneum was established by the respective method and maintained for 90 min, visualizing liver, spleen and colon. Arterial blood gas was obtained at baseline and four additional time points. Serum TNF-α for POD (postoperative day) 1 and cumulative urine adrenaline for the procedure were determined by ELISA. ANOVA and t test were used for statistical comparison. The study was Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees approved.
resultsAll experiments were completed as outlined. Blood pH showed a significant difference between groups. Serum TNF-α revealed higher levels for NOTES CO2 on POD 1 than standard laparoscopy (p = 0.03).
conclusionNOTES animals with CO2 insufflation initially experienced similar pH compared to standard laparoscopy but recovered to levels seen in low-pressure laparoscopy and NOTES with air. NOTES with CO2 appears to elicit a stronger stress response in this study than standard or low-pressure laparoscopy or NOTES with air.
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.