[Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in Germany: Data from the German NOTES registry]

BACKGROUND

The German NOTES registry (GNR) was initiated by the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) as a treatment and outcome database for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES).

AIM

The aim of this study was the descriptive analysis of all GNR data collected over a 5-year period since its start in 2008 with more than 3000 interventions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The GNR is an online database with voluntary participation available to all German-speaking clinics. Demographic data, therapy details, complications and data on the postoperative course of patients are recorded. All cases in the GNR between March 2008 and November 2013 were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

From a total of 3150 data sets 2992 (95 %) were valid and suited for the analysis. Hybrid transvaginal cholecystectomy was the most frequently used procedure (88.7 %), followed by hybrid transvaginal/transgastric appendectomy (6.1 %) and hybrid transvaginal/transrectal colon procedures (5.1 %). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1.6 %, postoperative complications in 3.7 % and conversions were reported in 1.5 %. Intraoperative bladder injuries and postoperative urinary tract infections were identified as method-specific complications of transvaginal procedures. Bowel injuries occurred as a rare (0.2 %) but potentially serious complication of transvaginal operations.

CONCLUSION

The German surgical community ensures a safe and responsible introduction of the new NOTES operation techniques with its active participation in the GNR. Despite an overall low complication rate, the high number of procedures in the GNR permitted the identification of method-specific complications. This knowledge can be used to further increase the safety of NOTES in practice.

[Transvaginal/transumbilical hybrid NOTES appendicectomy : Comparison of techniques in uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis]

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy (AE), the most frequent emergency surgical procedure, can be performed as a transvaginal hybrid natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) technique (TVAE). The question of feasibility also arises in cases of advanced inflammation with perforation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Since May 2012 all female patients with suspected acute appendicitis were offered a TVAE as an alternative to the standard procedure. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative parameters were registered prospectively.

RESULTS

Until October 2013 a total of 13 TVAEs had been performed. The median age of the patients was 41 years (range 20-76 years), median BMI was 23.1 (range 18.1-28.3 kg/m(2)) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) distribution (I/II/≥ III) was 8/5/0. Histology revealed three cases of perforated, one hemorrhagic necrotizing and seven phlegmonous appendicitis. Furthermore, there were two findings without inflammation, namely one neurogenic appendicopathy and one neuroendocrine tumor. For the three patients with perforated appendicitis, there was a trend for higher age (67.0 years versus 33.5 years, p=0.063) and a higher C-reactive protein (CRP) level on admission (134.4 mg/l versus 26.4 mg/l, p=0.043). Also, procedural time and hospital stay were longer (64 min versus 47 min, p=0.033 and 14 days versus 3 days, p=0.004, respectively). The former was mostly due to more extensive intraoperative flushing (volume 3000 ml versus 500 ml, p=0.013 and duration 13 min versus 2 min, p=0.011). None of the cases required conversion but two of the three postoperative complications occurred in patients with perforation, which also resulted in the longer hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Technically, TVAE seems feasible also in cases of perforated appendicitis. However, in these cases procedural time is prolonged due to more extensive flushing. Whether or not the longer hospital stay can be attributed to the perforation or if TVAE results in a higher rate of complications in cases of perforated appendicitis needs further evaluation.

Is the transnasal access for esophagogastroduodenoscopy in routine use equal to the transoral route? A prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is increasingly performed without sedation. Transoral (TO) and transnasal (TN) EGD offer different patient comfort and complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

For a controlled, randomized, clinical trial comparing TN-EGD with TO-EGD without sedation, patients were assigned to TN-EGD using a thin endoscope (group 1, 93 patients), or TO-EGD using a standard endoscope (group 2, 90 patients). Physician-rated procedural time and complications as well as patient-rated side effects and preferences were compared. In group 3, patients (118) who had previously undergone TO-EGD, now underwent TN-EGD.

RESULTS

Between group 1 and 2 there was no significant difference for procedural time. Nausea (p = 0.047) and epistaxis (p < 0.001) were significantly more frequent for TN-EGD. Conversion rate from TN- to TO-EGD was low with 4.3 %. For TN-EGD, patients' tolerance was better (p < 0.001), gagging was less (p < 0.001). In case of a future EGD, patients who know both procedures (group 3), strongly vote for TN-EGD (80 %). All groups vote against sedation for future procedures (90 %/90 %/89 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Epistaxis can be relevant after TN-EGD, but can mostly be managed conservatively. TN-EGD is superior to TO-EGD regarding subjective and objective gagging as well as procedural tolerance. Patients who experienced both access routes, prefer TN-EGD. TN-EGD without sedation should be aspired for patient comfort and is recommended for routine use.