Transvaginal and transrectal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery nephrectomy in a porcine survival model: comparison with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy

Randomized clinical trial on the use of a colon-occlusion device to assist rectal washout

Background

Transrectal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery is currently limited by the inherent risk of surgical site infection due to peritoneal contamination after rectotomy. Coloshield has been developed as a temporary colon occlusion device to facilitate rectal washout. However, effectiveness and safety has not been evaluated in humans.

Methods

Twenty-two patients have been randomly assigned to undergo proctological intervention with a rectal washout with and without the use of Coloshield. Patients and assessors were blinded. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) has been determined 30 min as well as immediately after rectal washout. Feasibility, pain, intra- and postoperative morbidity as well as bowel function and continence 6 weeks after surgery were assessed.

Results

BBPS 30 min after rectal washout with and without Coloshield was in mean 2.42 ± 1.02 and 2.12 ± 0.89 (p = 0.042). Mean BBPS immediately after rectal washout was 2.39 ± 1.02 and 2.24 ± 0.66 (p = 0.269). Mean BBPS immediately after rectal washout and 30 min thereafter did not differ (p = 0.711). Coloshield application was feasible without any complications. The median (interquartile range) numeric rating scale for pain 4 h after surgery was 1 (0–1) and 3 (0–4) (p = 0.212). Six weeks after surgery 0/11 and 1/11 patients suffered from evacuation difficulties (p = 1.0) and the median Vaizey–Wexner score was 1 (0–3) and 1 (0–2) (p = 0.360).

Conclusions

Coloshield application in humans is feasible and safe. Slight benefits in rectal preparation by washout are found when Coloshield is used. Colon occlusion by Coloshield for transrectal NOTES should be evaluated within clinical studies.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02579330

Transrectal rigid-hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy can be performed without peritoneal contamination: a controlled porcine survival study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The risk of infectious complications due to peritoneal contamination is a major concern and inhibits the widespread use of transrectal NOTES. A standardized rectal washout with a reversible colon occlusion device in situ has previously shown potential in reducing peritoneal contamination. The aim of this study was to compare the peritoneal contamination rate and inflammatory reaction for transrectal cholecystectomy after ideal rectal preparation (trCCE) and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (lapCCE) in a porcine survival experiment.

METHODS

Twenty pigs were randomized to trCCE (n = 10) or lapCCE (n = 10). Before trCCE, rectal washout was performed with saline solution. A colon occlusion device was then inserted and a second washout with povidone-iodine was performed. The perioperative course and the inflammatory reaction (leukocytes, C-reactive protein) were compared. At necropsy, 14 days after surgery the abdominal cavity was screened for infectious complications and peritoneal swabs were obtained for comparison of peritoneal contamination.

RESULTS

Peritoneal contamination was lower after trCCE than after lapCCE (0/10 vs. 6/10; p = 0.003). No infectious complications were found at necropsy in either group and postoperative complications did not differ (p = 1.0). Immediately after the procedure, leukocytes were higher after lapCCE (17.0 ± 2.7 vs. 14.6 ± 2.3; p = 0.047). Leukocytes and C-reactive protein showed no difference in the further postoperative course. Intraoperative complications and total operation time (trCCE 114 ± 32 vs. 111 ± 27 min; p = 0.921) did not differ, but wound closure took longer for trCCE (31.5 ± 19 vs. 13 ± 5 min; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

After standardized rectal washout with a colon occlusion device in situ, trCCE was associated without peritoneal contamination and without access-related infectious complications. Based on the findings of this study, a randomized controlled clinical study comparing clinical outcomes of trCCE with lapCCE should be conducted.

Long-term outcomes after Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction versus conventional laparoscopy-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a matched case-control study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of total laparoscopic surgery with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction (NOSE) with those for conventional laparoscopy (CL)-assisted surgery for treating rectal cancers.

Methods

We reviewed the prospectively collected records of 844 patients (163 NOSE and 681 CL) who underwent curative surgery for mid- or upper rectal cancers from January 2006 to November 2012. We applied propensity score analyses and compared oncological outcomes for the NOSE and CL groups in a 1:1 matched cohort.

Results

After propensity score matching, each group included 138 patients; the NOSE and CL groups did not differ significantly in terms of baseline clinical characteristics. The median follow-up was 57.7 months (interquartile range, 42.4–82.5 months). The combined 5-year local recurrence rate for all tumor stages was 4.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9%–7.4%) in the NOSE group and 3.0% (95% CI, 0%–6.3%) in the CL group (P = 0.355). The combined 5-year disease-free survival rates for all stages were 89.3% (95% CI, 84.3%–94.3%) in the NOSE group and 87.3% (95% CI, 81.8%–92.9%) in the CL group (P = 0.639). The postoperative mean fecal incontinence scores at 6, 12, and 24 months were similar between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

In our experience, NOSE for mid- and upper rectal cancer had acceptable long-term oncologic outcomes comparable to those of conventional minimal invasive surgery and seems to be a safe alternative to reduce access trauma.

Gastrointestinal tract access for urological natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery

We conducted a literature review of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), focusing on urologic procedures with gastrointestinal tract access, to update on the development of this novel surgical approach. As part of the methods, a comprehensive electronic literature search for NOTES was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane Library from March 2002 to February 2016 for papers reporting urologic procedures performed utilizing gastrointestinal tract access. A total of 11 peer-reviewed studies examining utility of gastrointestinal access for NOTES urologic procedures were noted, with the first report in 2007. The procedures reported in the studies were total/radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, adrenalectomy, and prostatectomy. The transgastric approach was identified in five studies examining total/radical nephrectomy (n = 2), partial nephrectomy (n = 1), partial cystectomy (n = 1), and adrenalectomy (n = 1). Six studies evaluated transrectal approach for NOTES, describing total/radical nephrectomy (n = 3), partial nephrectomy (n = 1), robotic nephrectomy with adrenalectomy (n = 1) and prostatectomy (n = 1). Feasibility was reported in all studies. Most studies were preclinical and acute, and limited by concerns regarding restricted instrumentation and infection risk. We concluded that gastrointestinal access for urologic NOTES demonstrates promise as described by outlined feasibility studies in preclinical models. Nonetheless, clinical application awaits further advancements in surgical technology and concerns regarding infectious potential.