Natural orifice translumenal surgery: from scales to symphonies

Patient preferences for surgical techniques: should we invest in new approaches?

BACKGROUND

The face of surgery has changed over the past two decades with the introduction of laparoscopic techniques. The majority of surgical specialties now perform minimally invasive procedures hence decreasing the scarring, pain, and infection historically associated with open surgery. To further reduce the invasiveness of surgery, new surgical techniques like Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) and Single-Port Surgery (SPS) are under development. Despite investment from the medical device industry and enthusiasm from medical professionals, we must analyse patient preferences and expectations of these novel techniques. This analysis will help us establish the demand for such techniques and guide future resource allocation.

METHODS

A questionnaire-based study was derived to identify whether the concepts of innovative techniques are acceptable to the general population. Their preferences between different available surgical options were recorded along with their choices for new innovative techniques. This study was carried out face-to-face and by using an online survey. It comprised four questions based upon a hypothetical scenario of an acute appendicitis. All the data were captured in a prospective database and analysed using statistical software.

RESULTS

A total of 750 participants from variable backgrounds took part in the study. NOTES or SPS without an established safety profile was accepted by 34.3% of patients. SPS was the most popular method followed by conventional laparoscopy. Open surgery and NOTES were the least preferred (ranked 1.78, 1.98, 2.94, and 3.27, respectively). Choosing between SPS and NOTES only, 80.6% opted for SPS, 11.8% NOTES, and 5.6% declined surgery. The most popular route of access for NOTES is oral (37.7%).

CONCLUSION

Single-port surgery was the most preferred method and NOTES was the least preferred technique. This shows general acceptance of the concept of virtually scarless surgery but without using the natural orifices.

Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery 2009: what is the future for the gastroenterologist?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In order to predict whether the gastroenterologist will have a role in the rapidly developing field of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), it is helpful to examine the new developments in this field. Our goal in this review is to examine the recent developments in the field and study the gastroenterologists' role to best make this prediction.

RECENT FINDINGS

Perhaps the most significant development in the field of NOTES has been the favorable patient and physician preferences for NOTES. There is evidence that patients would prefer NOTES cholecystectomy to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The most common reason for this choice appears to be the lack of pain and visible scar. Another very significant development has been the reality of human NOTES procedures. Multiple centers have reported human NOTES procedures, including transgastric appendectomies, transgastric liver biopsies, transgastric tubal ligation and transvaginal cholecystectomy without major complications. Gastroenterologists' expertise with flexible endoscope was critical in the above cases. Recently, a few publications have also shown how gastroenterologists with expertise in endosonography can have a role in affirming safe access.

SUMMARY

Although no one can predict with certainty where the field of NOTES will be in 1 year, it seems likely that gastroenterologist involvement will be necessary and advancements in this field will be applicable and diffuse into our daily practice.

Transgastric and Transperineal Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) in an Appendectomy Test Bed

Introduction. Our purpose was to establish a NOTES appendectomy test bed to evaluate whether the transgastric or transperineal (transvaginal) approach is most efficient. Methods. Using the uterine horns of female pigs as a model for appendectomy, 18 NOTES appendectomies were performed in 2 arms: 9 transgastric and 9 transvaginal. The primary outcome was mean total operative time for each technique excluding access closure. Secondary outcomes were peritoneal access and resection times. Means were compared using Student’s t-test. Results. Transgastric cases were faster than transperineal (46.5 ± 14.5 vs 60.0 ± 20.2 minutes, P = .02). Most of the improvement in transgastric times was due to faster resection (37.9 ± 17.4 vs 51.3 ± 16.5 minutes, P = .03). Neither approach was faster for peritoneal access (8.2 ± 3.4 vs 8.3 ± 4.5 minutes, nonsignificant). A significant learning curve was not demonstrated for the transgastric approach (53.0 vs 40.3 minutes, nonsignificant). A significant learning curve was demonstrated for the transperineal approach (76.0 vs 46.7 minutes, P = .02). Transperineal times improved over the study and approached transgastric; however, the last three transgastric cases were still significantly faster than the last three transperineal (40.3 vs 46.7 minutes, P = .02). No complications occurred in either group. Conclusions. The transgastric as compared with transperineal approach to NOTES appendectomy resulted in improved operative time in this model. The transperineal approach demonstrated a significant learning curve with operative times between techniques converging over time. This NOTES appendectomy test bed is suitable for evaluating NOTES innovations.