Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery

Single-incision multiport laparoendoscopic surgery using a short-type flexible endoscope and its usefulness in cholecystectomy

INTRODUCTION

We previously demonstrated the advantages of a short-type flexible endoscope as a working scope in laparoscopic surgery through single-incision procedures in animal experiments. In this report, we examined the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery through a single incision using a flexible endoscope in a clinical setting. Specifically, we performed cholecystectomy using single-incision multiport laparoendoscopic (SIMPLE) surgery.

METHODS

Thirteen patients with cholecystolithiasis or gallbladder polyp underwent SIMPLE cholecystectomy using a newly developed short-type flexible endoscope with a working length of 60 cm. Twenty-seven patients underwent standard single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a 5-mm rigid laparoscope. We retrospectively compared the surgical outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

SIMPLE cholecystectomy using the short-type flexible endoscope was successfully carried out. No gallbladder perforation occurred, but perforation occurred in four cases in the standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Although no other surgical outcomes differed between the two groups, the flexible endoscope had several advantages over the standard laparoscope. The scope provided a flexible view of the operating field. The gallbladder dissection using the cutting device via the scope was easier and safer than that in standard single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The water-jet, suctioning, and self-cleaning lens functions of the scope served the surgery well.

CONCLUSIONS

SIMPLE cholecystectomy using a short-type flexible endoscope has surgical outcomes equivalent to those of standard single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, but this endoscope with multiple functions may make the surgical procedures less stressful and safer.

NOTES for the management of an intra-abdominal abscess: transcolonic peritonoscopy and abscess drainage in a canine model

BACKGROUND

We studied natural orifice transcolonic drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses in a canine survival model to evaluate the difficulty of peritonoscopy and abscess drainage and the reliability of endoluminal colotomy closure.

METHODS

We placed a 7 cm nonsterile saline-filled latex balloon intra-abdominally to mimic or induce an abscess or inflammatory mass. Seven days later, we advanced a single-channel endoscope transanally into the sigmoid colon of the animal, made a colotomy and then advanced the endoscope intraperitoneally. We evacuated the identified abscess and placed a drain transabdominally. We closed the colotomy endoluminally with a tissue approximation system using 2 polypropylene sutures attached to metal T-bars. Two weeks later, we evaluated the colotomy closure at laparotomy.

RESULTS

We studied 12 dogs: 8 had subphrenic balloon implants and 4 had interbowel loop implants. Eleven survived and underwent transcolonic peritonoscopy; we identified the "abscess" in 9. The colotomy was successfully closed in 10 of 11 dogs. Although abscesses were easily identified, the overall difficulty of the peritonoscopy was moderate to severe. One dog required colotomy closure via laparotomy, while 9 had successful endoluminal closure. After colotomy closure, 8 animals survived for 2 weeks (study end point) without surgical complications, sepsis or localized abdominal infections. On postmortem examination, all closures were intact without any adjacent organ damage or procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery provides a novel alternative to treating intra-abdominal pathology. It is technically feasible to perform endoscopic transcolonic peritonoscopy and drainage of an intra-abdominal abscess with reliable closure of the colotomy in a canine experimental model.

Suprapubic-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) in urology: our experience

OBJECTIVE

To report our experience with suprapubic-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (SA-LESS) in urology.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 236 patients underwent SA-LESS A 5- and 10-mm (or two 5-mm) trocars were inserted at the medial margin of the umbilicus. A 10- or 5-mm trocar was inserted into the abdominal cavity below the ipsilateral pubic hairline. The technique for the SA-LESS is similar to that of the standard laparoscopy, with conventional instruments placed in the abdominal trocars, under direct vision achieved by a 10-mm conventional 30 ° or 5-mm flexible-tip 0 ° laparoscope placed through the trocar below the pubic hairline.

RESULTS

SA-LESS was successfully completed in 229 patients, without the need for ancillary trocars or additional instruments. Six patients required conversion to standard laparoscopy because of intraoperative bleeding (five) and failure to progress (one). One patient underwent open conversion because of gradual bleeding during the dissection of a dense adhesive renal pedicle due to infection and fibrosis The various SA-LESS procedures performed included adrenalectomy (15), renal cyst excision (19), nephrectomy (78; simple 63, radical 15), nephroureterectomy (three), nephron-sparing surgery (three), heminephroureterectomy (five), pyeloplasty (nine), pyelolithotomy (six), and ureterolithotomy (98). The median operative time was 81, 106, 92, 140, and 85 min, and the estimated blood loss was 60, 205, 115, 75, and 55 mL for adrenalectomy, simple nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, pyeloplasty, and ureterolithotomy, respectively. At a mean (range) follow-up of 14.8 (2-27) months there was a hidden umbilicus scar. The scar below the pubic hairline was not detectable because of pubic hair covering.

CONCLUSIONS

SA-LESS appears to be feasible, safe and effective. Compared with umbilical LESS, the placement of a trocar at the umbilicus and below the pubic hairline not only decreases the difficulty of surgery but also leads to little postoperative pain and good cosmetic results.

Mid-gut stents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastrointestinal stents offer a feasible, safe, cost effective, and minimally invasive method for reestablishing luminal patency. Previous clinical reports and systematic reviews have demonstrated the role of enteral stents in both the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Over the last two decades, the rapid development of deep enteroscopy in concert with the evolution of various stent devices/deployment mechanisms has enabled placement of enteral stents in the mid-gut; hence this has been increasingly reported. The present article focuses on stenting in the mid-gut, a relatively novel term, referring to the small bowel between the ampulla and the ileocecal valve.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mid-gut stenting is technically more difficult than stenting in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract, and therefore requires particular expertise, restricting its widespread utility. In total, 86 reported cases involving mid-gut stent deployment, by either endoscopic approaches (80.2%) or percutaneous approaches (19.8%), have been published. Although limited, these results have demonstrated that mid-gut stenting is reliable, effective, and a minimally invasive method for palliating malignant obstruction, as well as sealing leaks and fistulae.

SUMMARY

This article reviews the current status of mid-gut stenting, including endoscopic technique. The article also speculates about the potential for future advances within this field.

Obese women's perception of bariatric trans-vaginal NOTES

Much of the discussion pertaining to natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) focuses on technical issues, with little attention to women's perception and to their willingness to consent to this surgery, especially in the field of obesity. Aim of this study was to evaluate obese women's perception of NOTES and trans-vaginal access. Sixty two obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery were given a written description of NOTES with an anonymous questionnaire exploring their concerns and opinions regarding this technique. The risk of complications was the most important aspect with regard to surgical procedures for 87.1% of patients, while the aesthetic result counted only for 16.1%; none of the patients would accept an increased risk of surgical complications for a better aesthetic result, and 74.2% of them would prefer a standardized traditional surgical approach. Nulliparous women were more concerned about the potentially negative effects of NOTES on fertility than multiparous women and younger women were more worried about the effects on sexual function than older women. 83.9% of patients refusing NOTES stated that the main reason for their refusal was the lack of definitive data on the beneficial effects. Bariatric NOTES potentially offers obese women a scarless intervention, but only a few obese women expressed worries about the cosmetic/aesthetic effects of surgery, while most of them were worried about effects on future fertility and sexual life. Our study highlights a strong need for early reporting of outcome data to enlighten patients about this new approach to bariatric surgery.

Critical analysis of hot topics in NOTES

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has gained a great deal of attention from gastroenterologists and surgeons all over the world since its introduction in 2000. The field of NOTES has advanced tremendously since that time and exciting and well-designed research has been reported. Both randomized controlled trials and results from large national and international registries have been published. Many experimental and clinical studies have discussed transesophageal, transgastric, transvaginal and transrectal access for a variety of NOTES procedures. Transvaginal access has been the most frequently reported NOTES access route in clinical trials. When suitable instruments become available, a true comparison of NOTES with current laparoscopic approaches can be realized.