Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011;396:709-715. [PMID: 21384187 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-011-0769-8]

Comparing vNOTES Hysterectomy with Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Large Uteri

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to compare conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies (LHs) with vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) hysterectomies performed for patients with large uteri (weight >280 g) at our institution, which underwent a change in practice from conventional LH to vNOTES for large uteri.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

French tertiary university hospital.

PATIENTS

Two cohorts: the last 54 patients who underwent vNOTES hysterectomy and the last 52 patients who underwent conventional LH for large uteri.

INTERVENTION

Baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes were assessed, including uterine weight, mode of delivery for previous pregnancies, history of abdominal surgery, indication for hysterectomy, associated procedures, operative time (OT), complications, volume of intraoperative bleeding, and length of postoperative hospital stay.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Both groups were comparable, with a mean uterine weight of 586.4 ± 289.2 g in the laparoscopy group compared with 686.7 ± 374.6 g in the vNOTES group. There was a significant decrease in the OT in the vNOTES group with a median of 99 minutes (66.5-138.5 minutes) compared with 171 minutes (131-208 minutes) in the laparoscopy group, p <.001. The length of hospital stay was also decreased in the vNOTES group with a median of 0.5 nights compared with 2 nights in the laparoscopy group, p <.001. More patients were managed in an ambulatory setting in the vNOTES group (50% vs 3.7%, p <.001). Our study did not find any significant difference in terms of bleeding or the number of conversions to another surgical approach. The frequency of intraoperative and postoperative complications was very low.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the laparoscopic approach, vNOTES hysterectomy for large uteri (>280 g) is associated with decreased OT, a shorter hospital stay, and increased performance in the ambulatory setting.

Diagnosing and Treating Infertility via Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery versus Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) in the treatment of female infertility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study includes 174 female patients with a history of long-standing female infertility. We retrospectively reviewed 41 patients who underwent hysterolaparoscopy (HL) via transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) and 133 patients who underwent laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). Demographic data, operation records, and pregnancy outcomes were collected and analyzed. The deadline for postoperative follow-up was June 2022. All the included patients were followed up for at least 18 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Compared with the LESS group, the vNOTES group had a shorter postoperative bowel movement time and less pain at 4 and 12 h (p = 0.004 vs. 0.008); no differences were found in other perioperative indicators. The clinical pregnancy rates of the vNOTES and LESS groups were 87.80% and 74.43% (p = 0.073), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

vNOTES represents a new, less invasive approach for infertility diagnosis and treatment that is particularly suitable for women who have special esthetic requirements. vNOTES is safe and practical and may be an ideal choice for scarless infertility surgery.

Easy way to perform salpingectomy by transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) (with video)

The transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) is a new minimally invasive and emerging technique. Feasibility and safety profiles of peritoneal access via transvaginal routes have been demonstrated especially for the adnexal surgery. In order to be reproducible and replicable with a standardized procedure, we propose the step-by-step video description of the vNOTES salpingectomy. The advantages of the vNOTES (low postoperative pain, faster postoperative recovery, scarless surgery) could lead to a promising alternative to conventional laparoscopic salpingectomy/adnexectomy.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We performed this study to compare the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional multiple-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials comparing SILC versus MPLC. We evaluated the pooled outcomes for complications, pain scores, and surgery-related events. This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 48 randomized controlled trials involving 2838 patients in the SILC group and 2956 patients in the MPLC group were included in this study. Our results showed that SILC was associated with a higher incidence of incisional hernia (relative risk = 2.51; 95% confidence interval = 1.23-5.12; p = 0.01) and longer operation time (mean difference = 15.27 min; 95% confidence interval = 9.67-20.87; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between SILC and MPLC regarding bile duct injury, bile leakage, wound infection, conversion to open surgery, retained common bile duct stones, total complication rate, and estimated blood loss. No difference was observed in postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale between the two groups at four time points (6 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h postprocedure).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, SILC did not result in better outcomes compared with MPLC and both were equivalent regarding complications. Considering the additional surgical technology and longer operation time, SILC should be chosen with careful consideration.

Comparison of Major Clinical Outcomes Between Transvaginal NOTES and Traditional Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The advent of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (transvaginal NOTES) aims to minimize surgical trauma and reduce recovery time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical trials comparing transvaginal NOTES and traditional laparoscopy were identified by searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science (from 2004 to March 2018). Major outcomes evaluated were risk of postoperative complications and secondary outcomes were pain on postoperative day (POD) 1, POD2, and POD3, time needed for full recovery, risk of intraoperative complications, the duration of surgery, and hospital stay. The results of the meta-analysis are presented as standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Thirteen trials with 1340 patients were identified. There were no statistical differences for risk of complications between transvaginal NOTES and traditional laparoscopy (intraoperative complications: RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; P = 0.37; postoperative complication: RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.01; P = 0.148). The pain score was lower in transvaginal NOTES on POD1 (SMD: -0.71, 95% CI: -1.30 to -0.11, P = 0.019), on POD2 (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.07; P = 0.018), and on POD3 (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.23; P < 0.001). Patients in transvaginal NOTES needed much shorter time to fully recover after surgery (SMD -1.36, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.87; P < 0.001). In addition, patients underwent transvaginal NOTES had less pain and shorter time of recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

It is recommended that patients have cholecystectomy, adnexectomy, and appendectomy using transvaginal NOTES as it is safe and minimally invasive.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

METHODS

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

Does obesity influence the results in Transvaginal Hybrid-NOTES cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND

Morbidly obese patients are usually excluded from studies that compare Transvaginal Hybrid-NOTES Cholecystectomy (TVC) with traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Therefore, these study results cannot necessarily be transferred to this group of patients. In this study, we have analyzed and compared the outcomes of the procedure with obese and non-obese patients.

METHODS

Data from a prospectively maintained database were retrospectively analyzed. All the TVCs performed in our clinic since 2008 were divided into groups according to their body mass index (BMI). Within these groups, we evaluated the following outcome parameters: age, ASA classification, procedural time, number of percutaneous trocars, intra- and postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay. Additionally, the posthospital surgical and gynecological follow-up was evaluated for additional complications and patients with class III obesity were contacted to determine further parameters.

RESULTS

Six underweight, 76 normal weight, 72 overweight, 48 class I obesity, 15 class II obesity, and 20 class III obesity patients were analyzed. ASA classification (P < 0.001), procedural time (P < 0.001), and number of percutaneous trocars (P < 0.001) significantly increased with the BMI. By contrast, intra- and postoperative complications (P = 0.134 and P = 0.571), as well as postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.076) did not depend on the BMI. Neither did the classification according to Clavien/Dindo show a significant relation (P = 0.640). Lethality was zero. All posthospital gynecological follow-ups were inconspicuous. Telephone follow-up of class III obesity patients reached a rate of 85% after median 3.4 years. There were no additional complications or problems during sexual intercourse. The satisfaction with the cosmetic and the overall result was very high.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the results of existing studies including normal-weight or merely moderately obese patients can hardly be applied to morbidly obese patients, especially regarding procedural time and the number of percutaneous trocars, obesity should not be an exclusion criterion for TVC, regardless of its magnitude.

Hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy by transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) assisted by an umbilical camera: Case report and new hybrid technique in gynecology

•

Hybrid-Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) makes us to perform NOTES more safer with the direct visualization of the abdominal cavity.

•

Hybrid NOTES can lesser the exclusion criterias for NOTES.

•

Hybrid NOTES can lesser the complications; by capability of seeing all the major structures such as ureters, uterine vessels, bowels and pelvic adhesions.

Introduction

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a new development in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to demonstrate a new hybrid NOTES technique in gynecology which can be used for hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy in patients with adnexal pathology and multiple operation histories.

Presentation of case

A 50-year-old woman with gravida 2 para 2 was referred to our clinic with left-sided abdominal pain. She had a history of two previous abdominal surgeries and a persistent ovarian cyst for 2 years. An ultrasound examination revealed a left complex hypoechoic ovarian cyst of 10 cm. Tumor markers were normal and the patient had no suspicion for malignancy. The hybrid NOTES technique assisted by an umbilical camera was planned due to the possibility of pelvic adhesions and her concerns about cosmesis.

Discussion

The major difference between NOTES and umbilical camera assisted NOTES is seeing all of the major structures, such as the ureters, uterine vessels, bowels, and pelvic adhesions, which can lead to complications during the surgery. In fact, hybrid NOTES can make surgeries more feasible.

Conclusion

This new hybrid NOTES offers effective and safer surgical management in patients who have had previous surgery and adnexal masses.

Feasibility and Technique for Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery Liver Resection: A Porcine Model

INTRODUCTION

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a challenging minimally invasive procedure. Although laparoscopic techniques for liver resection are gaining acceptance worldwide, few studies have investigated NOTES liver resection. We used a porcine model to assess the feasibility and safety of transvaginal NOTES liver resection (TV NOTES LR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine female pigs underwent TV NOTES LR. A nonsurvival acute porcine model with general anesthesia was used in all cases. Using hybrid NOTES technique, we placed only 1 umbilical 12-mm umbilical trocar in the abdominal wall, which was used to create pneumoperitoneum. A laparoscope was then advanced to obtain intra-abdominal visualization. A 15-mm vaginal trocar was inserted under direct laparoscopic vision, and a flexible endoscope was introduced through the vaginal trocar. A long, flexible grasper and endocavity retractor were used to stably retract the liver. The liver edge was partially transected using energy devices inserted through the umbilical trocar. To transect the left lateral lobe, a flexible linear stapler was inserted alongside the vaginal trocar. A specimen extraction bag was deployed and extracted transvaginally. Blood loss, bile leakage, operative time, and specimen size were evaluated. Necropsy studies were performed after the procedures.

RESULTS

Eighteen transvaginal NOTES partial liver resections and 4 transvaginal NOTES left lateral lobectomies were successfully performed on 9 pigs. Mean operative time was 165.8 minutes, and mean estimated blood loss was 76.6 mL. All TV NOTES LRs were performed without complications or deaths. Necropsy showed no bile leakage from remnant liver.

CONCLUSIONS

Our porcine model suggests that TV NOTES LR is technically feasible and safe and has the potential for clinical use as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional laparoscopic liver resection.

Meta-analysis of hybrid natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery

Background

Hybrid natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), combining access through a natural orifice with small-sized abdominal trocars, aims to reduce pain and enhance recovery. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare pain and morbidity in hybrid NOTES and standard laparoscopy.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs and non- RCTs comparing hybrid NOTES and standard laparoscopy. The main outcome was pain on postoperative day (POD) 1. Secondary outcomes were pain during the further postsurgical course, rescue analgesia, complications, and satisfaction with the cosmetic result. The results of meta-analysis in a random-effects model were presented as odds ratio (ORs) or standard mean differences (MDs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals.

Results

Six RCTs and 21 non-randomized trials including 2186 patients were identified. In hybrid NOTES the score on the numerical pain scale was lower on POD 1 (−0·75, 95 per cent c.i. −1·09 to −0·42; P = 0·001) and on POD 2–4 (−0·58, −0·91 to −0·26; P &lt; 0·001) than that for standard laparoscopy. The need for rescue analgesia was reduced in hybrid NOTES (OR 0·36, 0·24 to 0·54; P &lt; 0·001). The reduction in complications found for hybrid NOTES compared with standard laparoscopy (OR 0·52, 0·38 to 0·71; P &lt; 0·001) was not significant when only RCTs were considered (OR 0·83, 0·43 to 1·60; P = 0·570). The score for cosmetic satisfaction was higher after NOTES (MD 1·14, 0·57 to 1·71; P &lt; 0·001).

Conclusion

Hybrid NOTES reduces postoperative pain and is associated with greater cosmetic satisfaction in selected patients.

Safety Outcomes of NOTES Cholecystectomy Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is an endoscopic technique whereby surgical interventions can be performed with a flexible endoscope passed through a natural orifice (mouth, vulva, urethra, anus) then through a transluminal opening of the stomach, vagina, bladder, or colon. Although in the early stage of research and development, NOTES has been clinically applied across the globe, above all the transvaginal cholecystectomy is among the most frequently performed procedures. In the existing 2 types of transvaginal routes, the hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy (NC) is more likely to be accepted. However, there has been controversy regarding the safety outcomes of hybrid NC in comparison with classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the characteristics between NC and classical LC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A meta-analysis of eligible studies comparing NC with classical LC was performed to evaluate the safety outcomes including wound complications, other postoperative complications and intraoperative conversion between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Pooling 3 randomized controlled trials (n=157) and 7 nonrandomized trial (n=593) demonstrated that the rates of wound complications and other postoperative complications in NC group did not significantly differ from those of classical LC group [wound complications: ratio difference (RD)=-0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04to 0.01, P=0.23; other postoperative complication: RD=-0.01; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02; P=0.6]. The intraoperative conversion rate in NC groups was higher than that of LC groups (RD=0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significate difference between the safety of NC and laparoscope cholecystectomy. NC is associated with a higher rate of intraoperative conversion when compared with LC. It is worthy of further promotion and validation in clinical settings.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Less scar, less pain

CONTEXT AND AIMS:

Our study aims to evaluate the post-operative pain and cosmesis of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison with the standard, 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) with respect to the length of incision, cosmetic scores, post-operative pain scores and duration of hospital stay.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

This comparative randomised study was conducted in a tertiary care centre teaching hospital between September 2012 and 2014. One hundred and fifty consecutive patients, who qualified as per inclusion criteria, were included in the study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

Seventy-five patients were included in the SLC arm and 75 in the SILC arm. SILC procedure was carried out as transumbilical multiport technique and SLC as 3-port technique utilizing - 5, 5, 10 mm ports.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

The data for the primary observations (post-operative pain scores, cosmetic score and incision length) and secondary observation (post-operative hospital stay) were noted. Weighted mean difference was used for calculation of quantitative variables, and odds ratios were used for pooling qualitative variables.

RESULTS:

Pain scores at 4 and 24 h were significantly better for SILC arm than SLC arm (at 4 h - 4.84 ± 0.95 vs. 6.17 ± 0.98, P < 0.05 and at 24 h - 3.84 ± 0.96 vs. 5.17 ± 0.09, P < 0.05). Length of incision was significantly smaller (SILC - 2.631 ± 0.44 cm vs. SLC - 5.11 ± 0.44 cm), P < 0.05 and cosmetic score was significantly better in SILC arm (6.25 ± 1.24) than SLC arm (4.71 ± 1.04), P < 0.05. Difference between the hospital stay is insignificant for two arms SILC (2.12 ± 0.34) and SLC (2.13 ± 0.35), P > 0.05.

DISCUSSION:

Significant difference was found in duration and intensity of pain between two procedures at 4 and 24 h. Cosmesis was significantly better in SILC than SLC group, the sample size in our study was small to arrive at a definite conclusion. The procedure can be selectively and judiciously performed by surgeons trained in regular laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, the threshold for conversion should be low in learning phase. Widespread application must await Level 1 evidence from prospective trials.

Endoscopic surgery - exploring the modalities

The adoption of endoscopic surgery continues to expand in clinical situations with the recent natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery technique enabling abdominal organ resection to be performed without necessitating any skin incision. In recent years, the development of numerous devices and platforms have allowed for such procedures to be carried out in a safer and more efficient manner, and in some ways to better simulate triangulation and surgical tasks (e.g., suturing and dissection). Furthermore, new novel techniques such as submucosal tunneling, endoscopic full-thickness resection and hybrid endo-laparoscopic approaches have further widened its use in more advanced diseases. Nevertheless, many of these new innovations are still at their pre-clinical stage. This review focuses on the various innovations in endoscopic surgery, with emphasis on devices and techniques that are currently in human use.

Comparison of outcome and side effects between conventional and transvaginal laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis

Transvaginal laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TVC) is becoming an attractive alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). We conducted a meta-analysis study to compare the outcome and side effects between TVC and CLC. Clinical studies on TVC with CLC as control were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE (from 2007 to December 2013). Nine studies were identified for meta-analysis. Our results showed that TVC required much longer operative time [MD, 30.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 13.00-48.65; P=0.0007] and had significantly lower pain score on postoperative day 1 as compared with CLC (MD, -1.77; 95% CI, -2.91 to -0.63; P=0.002). No statistical difference in days of hospital stay (MD, -1.60; 95% CI, -4.73 to 1.54; P=0.32) and number of complications was found between the 2 groups (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.25-1.10; P=0.09). Safety of TVC is similar as CLC. In conclusion, TVC patients have significantly less postoperative pain but need much longer operative time.

Systematic analysis of the safety and benefits of transvaginal hybrid-NOTES cholecystectomy

AIM: To evaluate transvaginal hybrid-NOTES cholecystectomy (TVC) during its clinical establishment and compare it with the traditional laparoscopic technique (LC).

METHODS: The specific problems and benefits of TVC were reviewed using a registry analysis, a comparative cohort study and a randomized clinical trial. At first, feasibility, safety and specific complications of the TVC were analyzed based on the first 488 data sets of the German NOTES Registry (GNR). Hereafter, we compared the early postoperative results of our first 50 TVC-patients with those of 50 female LC-patients matched by age, BMI and ASA classification. The same cohort was contacted an average of two years later to evaluate long-term results concerning pain and satisfaction with the aesthetic results and the overall postoperative results as well as sexual intercourse by means of two domains of the German version of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-d). Consequently, we performed a randomized clinical trial comparing 20 TVC-patients with 20 needlescopic/3-trocar cholecystectomies (NC) also concerning the early postoperative results as well as pain, satisfaction and quality of life by means of the Eypasch Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) in the later course. Finally, we discussed the results in accordance with other published studies.

RESULTS: The complication (3.5%) and conversion rates (4.1%) for TVC were low in the GNR and comparable to those of the LC. Access related intraoperative complications included injuries to the bladder (n = 4; 0.8%) and bowel (n = 3; 0.6%). The study cohort revealed less postoperative pain after TVC comparing to the LC-patients on the day of surgery (NRS, 1.5/10 vs 3.1/10, P = 0.003), in the morning (NRS, 1.9/10 vs 2.8/10, P = 0.047) and in the evening (NRS, 1.1/10 vs 1.8/10, P = 0.025) of postoperative day (POD) one. The randomized clinical trial consistently found less cumulative pain until POD 2 (NRS, 8/40 vs 14/40, P = 0.043), as well as until POD 10 (NRS, 22/190 vs 41/190, P = 0.010). Furthermore, the TVC-patients had a better quality of life on POD 10 than did the LC-patients (GIQLI, 124/144 vs 107/144, P = 0.028). The complication rates were comparable and no specific problems were detected in the long-term follow-up for sexual intercourse for either group. The TVC-patients were more satisfied with the aesthetic result in the long-term course in the matched cohort analysis (1.00 vs 1.88, P < 0.001) as well as in the randomized clinical trial (1.00 vs 1.70, P < 0.001) when compared with the LC-patients.

CONCLUSION: TVC is a feasible procedure with a high safety profile and has advantages in regard to postoperative pain and aesthetic results when compared with LC or NC.

Women’s Perception of Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES)

Objective. Over the past 8 years, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has developed from preclinical to routine clinical practice. However, there are still concerns regarding the transvaginal approach. In our survey, we were interested in females with a professional medical background, thus having at least a basic medical understanding, which might discriminate between objective and subjective concerns. Material and Methods. A questionnaire with 14 items was distributed among 1895 female physicians and nursing and administration staff of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. In addition, a qualitative literature review was performed. Data analysis was carried out using statistical package R version 2.15.0. Results. The questionnaire was answered anonymously by 553 employees (29%). Fifty-seven percent were nurses, 18.6% belonged to administration, and 17% were physicians. A total of 63.1% of our respondents would choose the transvaginal NOTES technique for an assumed ovariectomy, while only 30.4% would choose this access for cholecystectomy. Doubts regarding transvaginal NOTES were related to sexual dysfunction (44.8%), its experimental nature (43.8%), future pregnancies (36.8%), and ethical reasons (30.3%). The literature review showed that women’s perception of the transvaginal access is documented very heterogeneously and therefore difficult to compare. Conclusions. Despite the good reported results of NOTES and the medical background of the surveyed female employees, our study and the literature review clearly shows that there are  fears regarding the transvaginal access, which might be a result of limited information. More accurate explanation of the available methods by the attending surgeon can lead to a better choice of the patient’s preferred method.

Transvaginal cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare the results of transvaginal cholecystectomy (TVC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) for gallbladder disease.

METHODS: We performed a literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, Chinese Medical Journal database and Wanfang Data for trials comparing outcomes between TVC and CLC. Data were extracted by two authors. Mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), odds ratios and risk rate with 95%CIs were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with the χ² test. The fixed-effects model was used in the absence of statistically significant heterogeneity. The random-effects model was chosen when heterogeneity was found.

RESULTS: There were 730 patients in nine controlled clinical trials. No significant difference was found regarding demographic characteristics (P > 0.5), including anesthetic risk score, age, body mass index, and abdominal surgical history between the TVC and CLC groups. Both groups had similar mortality, morbidity, and return to work after surgery. Patients in the TVC group had a lower pain score on postoperative day 1 (SMD: -0.957, 95%CI: -1.488 to -0.426, P < 0.001), needed less postoperative analgesic medication (SMD: -0.574, 95%CI: -0.807 to -0.341, P < 0.001) and stayed for a shorter time in hospital (MD: -1.004 d, 95%CI: -1.779 to 0.228, P = 0.011), but had longer operative time (MD: 17.307 min, 95%CI: 6.789 to 27.826, P = 0.001). TVC had no significant influence on postoperative sexual function and quality of life. Better cosmetic results and satisfaction were achieved in the TVC group.

CONCLUSION: TVC is safe and effective for gallbladder disease. However, vaginal injury might occur, and further trials are needed to compare TVC with CLC.

Transvaginal/transumbilical hybrid--NOTES--versus 3-trocar needlescopic cholecystectomy: short-term results of a randomized clinical trial

In a randomized clinical trial, needlescopic 3-trocar cholecystectomy was compared with transvaginal/transumbilical hybrid—NOTES—technique for symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. We found significantly less pain despite less analgesics, increased satisfaction with the aesthetic result, and improved postoperative quality of life in the NOTES group. Furthermore, both techniques were equal in terms of safety.

Objective:

For cholecystectomy, both the needlescopic cholecystectomy (NC) 3-trocar technique using 2 to 3 mm trocars and the umbilical-assisted transvaginal cholecystectomy (TVC) technique have found their way into clinical routine. This study compares these 2 techniques in female patients who are in need of an elective cholecystectomy.

Background:

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a surgical concept permitting scarless intra-abdominal operations through natural orifices, such as the vagina. Because of the lack of an adequately powered trial, we designed this first randomized controlled study for the comparison of TVC and NC.

Methods:

This prospective, randomized, nonblinded, single-center trial evaluates the safety and effectiveness of TVC (intervention), compared with NC (control) in female patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. The primary endpoint was intensity of pain until the morning of postoperative day (POD) 2. Secondary outcomes were among others intra- and postoperative complications, procedural time, amount of analgesics used, pain intensity until POD 10, duration of hospital stay, satisfaction with the aesthetic result, and quality of life on POD 10 as quantified with the Eypasch Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI).

Results:

Between February 2010 and June 2012, 40 patients were randomly assigned to the interventional or control group. All patients completed follow-up. Procedural time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and the rate of intra- and postoperative complications were similar in the 2 groups. However, significant advantages were found for the transvaginal access regarding pain until POD 2, but also until POD 10 (P = 0.043 vs P = 0.010) despite significantly less use of peripheral analgesics (P = 0.019). In the TVC group, patients were significantly more satisfied with the aesthetic result (P < 0.001) and had a significantly better GIQLI (P = 0.028).

Conclusions:

Although comparable in terms of safety, TVC caused less pain, increased satisfaction with the aesthetic result, and improved postoperative quality of life in the short term.

Safety of transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing data regarding clinical outcomes following transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy (TVC), a consensus regarding safety based on comparative studies has yet to be reached. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare safety and clinical outcomes of TVC with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) for the treatment of benign gallstone disease.

METHODS

A comprehensive search for published studies comparing TVC and CLC was performed. Review of each study was conducted and data were extracted. All pooled outcome measures were determined using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Data were retrieved from 14 studies describing 1,145 patients. There was no difference in total complications (POR = 0.68; 95 % CI 0.40-1.14; P = 0.14), incidence of bile duct injury (POR = 1.33; 95 % CI 0.31-5.66; P = 0.70), Clavien-Dindo Grade II (POR = 0.48; 95 % CI 0.14-1.60; P = 0.23) or Grade III (POR = 0.63; 95 % CI 0.24-1.65; P = 0.34) complications between TCV and CLC. Time of return to normal activities was significantly reduced in the TVC group (WMD = -4.86 days; 95 % CI -9.33 to -0.39; P = 0.03), and there was a non-significant reduction in postoperative pain on days 1 (WMD = -0.80; 95 % CI -1.60 to 0.01; P = 0.05) and 3 (WMD = -0.89; 95 % CI -1.77 to -0.01; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

TVC is safe when performed by appropriately trained surgeons and may be associated with a faster return to normal activities and decreased postoperative pain.

Comparison of immediate postoperative pain after transvaginal versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Transvaginal cholecystectomy (TVC) is the most common natural orifice transluminal surgery (NOTES) performed in women, yet there is a paucity of data on intraoperative and immediate postoperative pain management. Previous studies have demonstrated that NOTES procedures are associated with less postoperative pain and faster recovery times. This study analyzes intraoperative and postoperative opioid use for TVC compared with traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs).

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive TVC and LC female patients between August 2009 and August 2012 in an academic institution. We compared demographics, intraoperative and postoperative opioid use and times in the operating room (OR) and in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU).

RESULTS

A total of 68 TVC and 67 LC patients were included in this study. The TVC and LC groups were similar in terms of age (both 41 years) and body mass index (29 and 31 kg/m2, respectively). The intraoperative preparation, surgical, and emergence times were significantly longer for the TVC than for the LC (p ≤ 0.01). Compared with the LC group, the intraoperative opioid requirement was significantly greater (TVC 27 mg vs. LC 25 mg; p = 0.003), but after adjusting for anesthesia time, the difference in OR opioid consumption became non-significant (p = 0.08). The PACU opioid requirement (TVC 2.5 vs. LC 5 mg; p = 0.04) was significantly lower for the TVC group, and a greater proportion of patients did not need any pain medications (TVC 38 % vs. LC 21 %; p = 0.04), compared with the LC group. The average PACU pain scores were not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.45).

CONCLUSION

TVC patients did not experience more pain than LC patients. Although the average pain scores of TVC patients did not differ from those of the LC patients, TVC patients did require less pain medication in the PACU.

Single-incision versus standard multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of experimental and observational studies

OBJECTIVE

The advantages of single-incision surgery for the treatment of gallstone disease is debated. Previous meta-analyses comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and standard laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy (SLMC) included few and underpowered trials. To overcome this limitation, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies.

METHODS

A MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library literature search of studies published in and comparing SILC with SLMC was performed. The primary outcome was safety of SILC as measured by the overall rate of postoperative complications and biliary spillage. Feasibility was another primary outcome as measured by the conversion and operative time. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, perioperative blood loss, time to return to normal activity, and cosmetic satisfaction were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 43 studies of which 30 were observational reports and 13 experimental trials, for a total of 7489 patients (2090 SILC and 5389 SLMC). The overall rate of complications was comparable between groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.87-1.35; P = .46), as were the rates of biliary spillage (RR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.73-1.84; P = .53) and conversion rate (RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.53-1.46; P = .62). Operative time was in favor of SLMC (weighted mean difference = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.67-0.79; P < .0001). Secondary outcomes favored SILC, but with marginal advantages.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC is a feasible technique but without any significant advantage over SLMC for relevant end points. Although secondary outcomes favored SILC, the small magnitude of the advantage and the low quality of assessment methods question the clinical significance of these benefits.

Single-incision and NOTES cholecystectomy, are there clinical or cosmetic advantages when compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A case-control study comparing single-incision, transvaginal, and conventional laparoscopic technique for cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical and cosmetic results of transvaginal hybrid cholecystectomy (TVC), single-port cholecystectomy (SPC), and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Recently, single-incision laparoscopic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery have been developed as minimally invasive alternatives for CLC. Few comparative studies have been reported.

METHODS

Female patients with symptomatic gallstone disease who were treated in 2011 with SPC, TVC, or CLC were entered into a database. Patients were matched for age, body mass index, and previous abdominal surgery. After the operation all patients received a survey with questions about recovery, cosmesis, and body image.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients, 30 in each group, were evaluated. Median operative time for CLC was significantly shorter (p < 0.001). There were no major complications. Length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and postoperative complications were not significantly different. The results for cosmesis and body image after the transvaginal approach were significantly higher. None of the sexually active women observed postoperative dyspareunia.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SPC and TVC are feasible procedures when performed in selected patients. CLC is a faster procedure, but other clinical outcomes and complication rates were similar. SPC, and especially TVC, offer a better cosmetic result. Randomized trials are needed to specify the role of SPC and TVC in the treatment of patients with symptomatic gallstone disease.

Transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy--results of a randomized clinical trial after 6 months

INTRODUCTION

For cholecystectomy (CHE), both the needlescopic three-trocar technique with 2-3-mm instruments (needlescopic cholecystectomy (NC)) and the umbilically assisted transvaginal technique with rigid instruments (transvaginal cholecystectomy (TVC)) have been established for further reduction of the trauma remaining from laparoscopy.

METHODS

To compare the further outcome of both techniques for elective CHE in female patients, we analyzed the secondary end points of a prospective randomized single-center trial (needlescopic versus transvaginal cholecystectomy (NATCH) trial; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0168577), in particular, satisfaction with aesthetics, overall satisfaction, abdominal pain, and incidence of trocar hernias postoperatively at both 3 and 6 months. After 3 months, the domains "satisfaction" and "pain" of the German version of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-d) were additionally evaluated to detect respective complications. A gynecological control examination was conducted in all TVC patients after 6 months.

RESULTS

Forty patients were equally randomized into the therapy and the control groups between February 2010 and June 2012. No significant differences were found for overall satisfaction with the surgical result, abdominal pain, sexual function, and the rate of trocar hernias. However, aesthetics were rated significantly better by TVC patients both after 3 and after 6 months (P = 0.004 and P < 0.001). There were no postoperative pathological gynecological findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Following TVC, there is a significantly better aesthetic result as compared to NC, even at 3 and 6 months after the procedure. No difference was found for sexual function.

Complications of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a series of 102 patients

OBJECTIVE

To review the complications encountered in our facility and in previously published studies of transvaginal (TV) natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) to date.

BACKGROUND

TV NOTES is currently observed with critical eyes from the surgical community, despite encouraging data to suggest improved short-term recovery and pain.

METHODS

All TV NOTES procedures performed in female patients between 18 and 65 years of age were included. The median follow-up was 90 days. The TV appendectomies and ventral hernia repairs were pure NOTES, through a SILS port in the vagina, whereas TV cholecystectomies were hybrid procedures with the addition of a 5-mm port in the umbilicus.

RESULTS

A total of 102 TV NOTES procedures, including 72 TV cholecystectomies, 24 TV appendectomies, and 6 TV ventral hernia repairs, were performed. The average age was 37 years old and body mass index was 29 kg/m. Three major and 7 minor complications occurred. The first major complication was a rectal injury during a TV access port insertion. The second major complication was an omental vessel bleed after a TV cholecystectomy. The third complication was an intra-abdominal abscess after a TV appendectomy. Seven minor complications were urinary retention (4), transient brachial plexus injury, dislodgement of an intrauterine device, and vaginal granulation tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

As techniques in TV surgery are adopted, inevitably, complications may occur due to the inherent learning curve. Laparoscopic instruments, although adaptable to TV approaches, have yet to be optimized. A high index of suspicion is necessary to identify complications and optimize outcomes for patients.

Remains of the day: Biliary complications related to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

AIM: To assesse the rate of bile duct injuries (BDI) and overall biliary complications during single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

METHODS: SPLC has recently been proposed as an innovative surgical approach for gallbladder surgery. So far, its safety with respect to bile duct injuries has not been specifically evaluated. A systematic review of the literature published between January 1990 and November 2012 was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing SPLC versus CLC reporting BDI rate and overall biliary complications were included. The quality of RCT was assessed using the Jadad score. Analysis was made by performing a meta-analysis, using Review Manager 5.2. This study was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A retrospective study including all retrospective reports on SPLC was also performed alongside.

RESULTS: From 496 publications, 11 RCT including 898 patients were selected for meta-analysis. No studies were rated as high quality (Jadad score ≥ 4). Operative indications included benign gallbladder disease operated in an elective setting in all studies, excluding all emergency cases and acute cholecystitis. The median follow-up was 1 mo (range 0.03-18 mo). The incidence of BDI was 0.4% for SPLC and 0% for CLC; the difference was not statistically different (P = 0.36). The incidence of overall biliary complication was 1.6% for SPLC and 0.5% for CLC, the difference did not reached statistically significance (P = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.66-15). Sixty non-randomized trials including 3599 patients were also analysed. The incidence of BDI reported then was 0.7%.

CONCLUSION: The safety of SPLC cannot be assumed, based on the current evidence. Hence, this new technology cannot be recommended as standard technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for clinical management of intra-abdominal diseases

Clinical research on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has been increasingly reported over the past 5 years and more than 1200 patients have received various NOTES procedures. The present article reviews the clinical practice of NOTES for the treatment of intra-abdominal diseases, and was carried out through systematic search with specific keywords in major databases for NOTES-related clinical literature. The last date of the search was 15 August, 2012. Transvaginal cholecystectomy is the commonest NOTES procedure reported, and its clinical feasibility and safety was established through prospective case series and randomized trials. There is a regional difference in NOTES development with the majority of NOTES fromCaucasian countries being transvaginal cholecystectomy and most reports from Asian countries being NOTES-related procedures. Safe closure of gastrointestinal access remains challenging, and novel endoscopic instruments are essential to enhance future development of NOTES.

Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.

Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.

Prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing the use of a single-port device with that of a flexible endoscope with no other device for transumbilical cholecystectomy: LLATZER-FSIS pilot study

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice transumbilical endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a technique still in experimental development that requires clinical trials to assess its safety and efficacy. We present a pilot prospective, randomized, three-arm clinical trial of 1-year duration that was conducted as a noninferiority trial comparing single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and flexible single-incision surgery (FSIS) with conventional laparoscopy for elective cholecystectomy (NCT01558414).

METHODS

Sixty patients between aged 18 and 65 years who were eligible for elective cholecystectomy were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio (n = 20 per group): group A (SILS), single-incision endoscopic surgery using a transumbilical SILS™ device; group B (FSIS), single-incision transumbilical surgery using a flexible endoscope; and group C (CL), conventional laparoscopy. The main outcome variable of the study was "parietal complications" (wound infection, bleeding, and ventral hernia). The analysis was by intention to treat and attritions were not replaced.

RESULTS

Cholecystectomy was performed in 100 % of the cases; perioperative complications occurred in only 1.6 % of the cases, and umbilical surgical wound infection in 3.33 %, with no differences between groups. After a minimum follow-up of 1 year, no differences were noted in the frequency of parietal complications and no ventral hernias occurred. Postoperative pain, hospital length of stay, and downtime from work were similar in all three groups. Surgical time was longer in cases in which a single-incision transumbilical approach was used (58.95 min for SILS and 54.15 for FSIS vs. 49.21 for laparoscopy).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision transumbilical approaches are not inferior for safety or effectiveness compared with conventional laparoscopy. The transumbilical approach using a flexible endoscope is just as effective and safe as the other two procedures and is a promising single-incision approach.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with uncomplicated gallbladder disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard treatment for cholecystectomy. Recently, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been suggested as an alternative technique.

METHODS

Six databases were searched and reference lists of retrieved articles were checked to identify eligible studies. Data from randomized clinical trials related to the safety and effectiveness of SILC versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Odds ratio and mean differences were calculated with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analyses whenever possible.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 1113 patients met the eligibility criteria. Methodologic quality was unclear in most trails. Operating time was significantly longer in the single-incision laparoscopic surgery group compared with the CLC group (P<0.00001). Cosmesis was improved in single-incision laparoscopic patients at 1 month (P<0.00001). The pooled mean difference in pain scores at 24 hours was -0.75 in favor of the SILC technique (P=0.04). There was no significant difference in the conversion rates, adverse events, analgesia requirements, or the length of hospital stay between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence shows that patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder who prefer a better cosmetic outcome, SILC offers a safe alternative to CLC. Further high-powered randomized trials are need to determine whether SILC truly offer any advantages, especially be focused on failure of technique, adverse events, cosmesis, and quality of life.

Hybrid transvaginal cholecystectomy, clinical results and patient-reported outcomes of 50 consecutive cases

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to report the clinical and cosmetic results of transvaginal hybrid cholecystectomy (TVC).

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has been developed as a minimal invasive alternative for conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Although transvaginal NOTES procedures are becoming increasingly popular, data focussing on body image, cosmesis and sexual recovery are rare.

METHODS

Our clinic started to perform the TVC in the beginning of 2011. Female patients with symptomatic gallstone disease that were treated between January 2011 and April 2012 with TVC were entered in a prospective database. All patients received a survey postoperative with questions about recovery, cosmesis and body image.

RESULTS

Fifty consecutive patients were treated with a TVC. There were no major complications. Mean operative time was 61 min. In five patients (10 %), a conversion to another type of cholecystectomy was necessary. None of the sexually active women observed dyspareunia postoperative. The results for cosmesis and body image after the transvaginal approach were excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

TVC is a safe and feasible procedure when performed on selected patients. The transvaginal route seems to result in excellent cosmetic outcomes without gynaecologic complications after short-term follow up. Randomised trials are needed to specify the role of TVC in the treatment of patients with symptomatic gallstone disease and to detect differences in cosmetic outcomes.

Long-term results of transvaginal/transumbilical versus classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy--an analysis of 88 patients

INTRODUCTION

Transvaginal/transumbilical cholecystectomy using rigid instruments (TVC) is an alternative to the traditional laparoscopic technique (LC). Due to a lack of long-term data, the transvaginal approach is still controversial.

METHODS

Our first 50 TVC patients and 50 LC patients from the same time period with the same limits according to age, BMI and ASA classification were asked 48 questions 2 years postoperatively (mean) about resuming sexual intercourse, the domains "satisfaction" and "pain" of the German Female Sexual Function Index, resuming everyday life, postoperative abdominal pain, subjective impairment, incisional hernias, satisfaction with the aesthetic result, the overall postoperative result, and others. Postoperative sexual satisfaction and pain were defined as main outcome. Forty-six TVC patients and 42 LC patients answered the questions (36 TVC patients and 25 LC patients could answer the questions about sexual function).

RESULTS

No significant differences were found for postoperative sexual function, change in menorrhea, vaginal discharge and postoperative abdominal pain. TVC patients felt significantly less impaired postoperatively (p = 0.034). Two patients in the LC group developed a trocar hernia (p = 0.225). TVC patients could resume everyday life significantly earlier (p < 0.001) and were significantly more satisfied with the aesthetic (p < 0.001) and the overall postoperative result (p = 0.001). Significantly more TVC patients would recommend the applied surgical technique to friends and family (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This long-time prospective data acquisition from 88 or, for some data, 61 patients accounts for the safety of TVC, particularly with regard to sexual function. Additionally, it found less postoperative impairment, quicker recovery and improved satisfaction for TVC as compared to LC.

Less pain after transvaginal/transumbilical cholecystectomy than after the classical laparoscopic technique: short-term results of a matched-cohort study

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice surgery (NOS) is gaining acceptance as an alternative to the traditional laparoscopic technique, especially for cholecystectomy through the transvaginal route. However, NOS remains controversial concerning expected advantages in terms of short- and long-term outcomes and potential side effects. This study was designed to compare short-term outcomes between transvaginal/transumbilical and classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

A prospective matched-cohort study compared the authors' first 50 transvaginal/transumbilical cholecystectomies (TVC) with a group of 50 classical LCs from the corresponding period matched in terms of age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiology classification. In both groups, elective surgery was performed for symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. In the NOS group, a hybrid procedure was performed with one transumbilical rigid instrument and two transvaginal rigid instruments. A numeric rating scale was used for daily pain assessment, initiated postoperatively in the recovery room. Both groups were compared with regard to length of surgery, intra- and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and consumption of analgesics.

RESULTS

The length of surgery and the rate of complications were similar in the two groups. But significant advantages were found for the transvaginal access in terms of pain using Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) on the day of surgery (NRS, 1.5/10 vs 3.1/10; p = 0.003) as well as in the morning (NRS, 1.9/10 vs 2.8/10; p = 0.047) and in the evening (NRS, 1.1/10 vs 1.8/10; p = 0.025) of postoperative day 1, and with regard to the length of the postoperative hospital stay (2.7 vs 3.4 days; p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings show that TVC is a safe procedure for female patients. It has a risk comparable with that of classic LC, causes significantly less pain in the early postoperative period, and leads to a significantly shorter hospital stay. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm these results.

Prospective evaluation of transvaginal assisted cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Transvaginal video-assisted cholecystectomy (TVC) has so far not been prospectively evaluated using an internationally recognized health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment. We report the results of a prospectively studied cohort of patients with clinical and quality of life data.

METHODS

Prospectively controlled study of 128 patients undergoing TVC and 147 patients with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Data reported include patient demography, body mass index, anesthetic risk score (ASA), laboratory data, surgical times, length of hospital stay, pain score, analgesic medication used, complications, and quality of life scores using the combined method of SF-36 and GIQoL.

RESULTS

Ninety-five TVC and 96 CLC patients fully completed pre- and postoperative HRQoL questionnaires. Patients with incomplete or missing questionnaires were excluded as well as patients with signs of acute cholecystitis. Differences included cardiovascular comorbidity and previous surgical procedures, but there was no difference in age (p = 0.4), body mass index (p = 0.4), ASA grade (p = 0.4), or preoperative quality of life. No difference was seen in laboratory data, surgical times, or length of hospital stay. Pain score and analgesic medication showed a clear trend and significant differences in favor of TVC. There was no difference in complications. Quality of life and postoperative sexual function did not show any differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to report HRQoL outcomes after TVC using a recognized combined HRQoL assessment method. Although differences do exist in patient comorbidity and previous surgical experience, both groups were comparable. Less postoperative pain and no difference in HRQoL in TVC patients underlines this new procedure as a feasible standard approach in female patients. This study also is the first to differentiate between acute cholecystitis and symptomatic cholecystolithiasis in patients undergoing TVC.

Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery in humans: a review

Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) had its origins in numerous small animal studies primarily examining safety and feasibility. In human trials, safety and feasibility remain at the forefront; however, additional logistic, practical, and regulatory requirements must be addressed. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and summarize published studies to date of NOTES in humans. The literature review was performed using PUBMED and MEDLINE databases. Articles published in human populations between 2007 and 2011 were evaluated. A review of this time period resulted in 48 studies describing procedures in 916 patients. Transcolonic and transvesicular procedures were excluded. The most common procedure was cholecystectomy (682, 75%). The most common approach was transvaginal (721, 79%). 424 procedures (46%) were pure NOTES and 491 (54%) were hybrid NOTES cases. 127 (14%) were performed in the United States of America and 789 (86%) were performed internationally. Since 2007, there has been major development in NOTES in human populations. A preponderance of published NOTES procedures were performed internationally. With further development, NOTES may make less invasive surgery available to a larger human population.

Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) (NCT00835250)

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a technique still in experimental development whose safety and effectiveness call for assessment through clinical trials. In this paper we present a three-arm, noninferiority, prospective randomized clinical trial of 1 year duration comparing the vaginal and transumbilical approaches for transluminal endoscopic surgery with the conventional laparoscopic approach for elective cholecystectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty female patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years who were eligible for elective cholecystectomy were randomized in a ratio of 1:1:1 to receive hybrid transvaginal NOTES (TV group), hybrid transumbilical NOTES (TU group) or conventional laparoscopy (CL group). The main study variable was parietal complications (wound infection, bleeding, and eventration). The analysis was by intention to treat, and losses were not replaced.

RESULTS

Cholecystectomy was successfully performed on 94% of the patients. One patient in the TU group was reconverted to CL owing to difficulty in maneuvering the endoscope. After a minimum follow-up period of 1 year, no differences were noted in the rate of parietal complications. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, and time off from work were similar in the three groups. No patient developed dyspareunia. Surgical time was longer among cases in which a flexible endoscope was used (CL, 47.04 min; TV, 64.85 min; TU, 59.80 min).

CONCLUSIONS

NOTES approaches using the flexible endoscope are not inferior in safety or effectiveness to conventional laparoscopy. The transumbilical approach with flexible endoscope is as effective and safe as the transvaginal approach and is a promising, single-incision approach.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy

INTRODUCTION

A natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) approach offers the potential of reducing pain and convalescence after intra-abdominal operations. We present a single-institution series of transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomies (TVC) and compare outcomes with patients undergoing standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

Patients had an indication for elective cholecystectomy and met the following institutional review board-approved inclusion criteria: female gender, age >18 years, body mass index ≤35, ASA Classification I or II, and absence of acute cholecystitis. TVC was performed by using one or two transabdominal ports to enable gallbladder retraction and clip application. Dissection was performed with a flexible endoscope through a posterior colpotomy using instrumentation from the NOTES GEN1 Toolbox (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.).

RESULTS

Seven patients underwent TVC and seven patients underwent LC. Operative times were significantly longer for TVC (162 vs. 68 min; p < 0.001). All procedures were performed on an outpatient basis, except for one patient in each group who were discharged on POD#1. Three minor (grade I) complications occurred: two in the LC group and one in the TVC group. TVC patients required less narcotics in the postanesthesia care unit (1 vs. 8 mg morphine equivalents; p = 0.02). Visual Analog Scale pain scores (scale 0-10) were less in the TVC group at 30 min (1 vs. 5; p = 0.02) and 60 min (2 vs. 5; p = 0.02). TVC pain scores also were lower on postoperative days 1, 4, and 7 (2, 1, 0 vs. 6, 3, 2), although only significantly on POD#1 (p = 0.01). SF-36 scores were similar at 1 and 3 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This series adds to the existing evidence that transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy using a flexible endoscope for dissection is a technically feasible and safe procedure. TVC requires a longer operative time than LC but may result in less pain in the immediate postoperative period with patients subsequently requiring fewer narcotics.

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC): comparison of learning curves. First European experience

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is an emerging procedure developed to decrease parietal trauma and improve cosmetic results. However, many technical constraints, such as lack of triangulation, instrument collisions, and cross-handing, hamper this approach. Using a robotic platform may overcome these problems and enable more precise surgical actions by increasing freedom of movement and by restoring intuitive instrument control.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected, under institutional review board approval, data on the first 25 patients who underwent single-site robotic cholecystectomies (SSRC) at our center. Patients enrolled in this study underwent SSRC for symptomatic biliary gallstones or polyposis. Exclusion criteria were: BMI > 33; acute cholecystitis; previous upper abdominal surgery; ASA > II; and age >80 and <18 years. All procedures were performed with the da Vinci Si Surgical System and a dedicated SSRC kit (Intuitive). After discharge, patients were followed for 2 months. These SSRC cases were compared to our first 25 single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies (SILC) and with the literature.

RESULTS

There were no differences in patient characteristics between groups (gender, P = 0.4404; age, P = 0.7423; BMI, P = 0.5699), and there were no conversions or major complications in either cohort. Operative time was significantly longer for the SILC group compared with SSRC (83.2 vs. 62.7 min, P = 0.0006), and SSRC operative times did not change significantly along the series. The majority of patients in each group were discharged within 24 h, with an average length of hospital stay of 1.2 days for the SILC group and 1.1 days for the SSRC group (P = 0.2854). No wound complications (infection, incisional hernia) were observed in the SSRC group and in the SILC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary experience shows that SSRC is safe, can easily be learned, and performed in a reproducible manner and is faster than SILC.

Are natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and single-incision surgery viable techniques for cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single-incision surgery (SIS) are less invasive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic techniques. Concerns exist over the safety of these new approaches, and randomized controlled trials have yet to confirm a net benefit. If NOTES and SIS techniques are to become standard practice, then they should be shown to be safe and hold clear benefits to patients. We aim at comparing the available results by using these techniques in a standard laparoscopic operation (cholecystectomy).

METHODS

A systematic review using available databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) and the published English language medical literature was performed. All the archived articles were cross-referenced. Outcome data obtained from a Cochrane review of laparoscopic cholecystectomy were used as the control group. All the operations performed via a single incision were grouped under SIS, and operations in which a natural orifice (alone or as a hybrid technique) was analyzed, under NOTES group. Mortality and complications were the primary outcome measures.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-five papers including 4703 patients (714 NOTES, 3989 SIS) were selected for analysis. Overall complication rate was 4.2% in the NOTES group versus 4.3% in the SIS group, with a distinct complication profile. No mortality was reported in either group. NOTES procedures had a longer mean operative time than SIS techniques (107 versus 79 minutes). The conversion rate between NOTES and SILS was similar (3.4% versus 3.3%, respectively).

DISCUSSION

No difference in the incidence of complications was observed with the newer techniques. Adequately powered randomized control trials are needed to clarify whether SIS/NOTES cholecystectomy has a similar length of hospital stay to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The increased occurrence of specific types of complications and their use in acute pathology needs further investigation to warrant further use in routine surgical practice.