Purpose We conducted a retrospective observational study in order to identify negative effects of NOTES procedures (Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery) with transvaginal specimen removal on pregnancy and delivery. Methods From the total population of 299 patients in our NOTES registry, we tried to contact the 121 patients who were of reproductive age (≤ 45 years) at the time of a transvaginal NOTES procedure. They were interviewed by telephone regarding their desire for children, post NOTES-operation pregnancies, and type of delivery using a structured questionnaire. The collected data was analyzed and compared with current data. Results We were able to contact 76 patients (follow-up rate: 62.8%) with a median follow-up of 77 months after surgery (33–129 months). Twenty of 74 participating patients had a desire for children (27.0%). One of them and another's male partner were diagnosed as infertile. Regarding the remaining 18 patients, 14 became pregnant, and three of them became pregnant twice. Considering these 17 pregnancies, there was one miscarriage (5.9%) and one twin birth (5.9%). On average, childbirth occurred 44 months after the NOTES procedure. With regard to the type of delivery, 10 vaginal births (58.8%) and 7 caesarean sections (41.2%) occurred. Thus, the rate of fulfilled desire for children was 77.8%. Compared with the literature, no difference to the normal course could be detected. Conclusion There is no sign that the transvaginal approach in Hybrid-NOTES, with removal of the specimen through the vagina, has a negative effect on conception, the course during pregnancy, or the type of delivery.

BackgroundInguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical operations globally; more than 20 million groin herniae are repaired annually worldwide. Recurrence after an inguinal hernia operation is a considerable clinical problem. Another remaining problem after hernia surgery is the occurrence of chronic pain. Up to now, the use of synthetic meshes is the standard procedure, but there is increasing evidence that biological meshes could be advantageous concerning the occurrence of chronic pain due to different postoperative remodeling, without the disadvantages of a life-long implant.We hypothesize that the use of a biological mesh reduces postoperative pain without being inferior in terms of recurrence rate compared with a synthetic mesh.Methods/designThe trial compares possible the advantages of biological matrices to synthetic meshes in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Four hundred and ninety-six patients with primary bilateral inguinal herniae in 20 German hernia centers will be enrolled. Biological mesh is used for one of the bilateral herniae, the other side will be operated on with a synthetic mesh. Randomization will preset which side is repaired with which material and trial participants will not be informed about the location of each mesh type. The primary endpoints will be intensity of postoperative local pain and the incidence of recurrent hernia after 2 years.DiscussionThere is no reasonably sized trial that assesses the use of biological meshes in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair.Our self-controlled trial design allows a direct comparison of the two meshes with very few confounding factors as well as minimizing the exclusion criteria. As we compare CE-certified medical devices in their designated indication the medical risk is not different compared to routine clinical care. Due to the common nature of bilateral inguinal hernia, a high recruitment rate is achievable. Because guidelines for hernia repair have stressed the need for reliable data on the already frequent use of biological meshes, we can expect our trial to have a direct implication on hernia-repair standards.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register, ID: DRKS00010178. Registered on 16.June.2016. BIOLAP underwent full external peer review as part of the funding process with the German Research Foundation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3122-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose Even though obesity is a known risk factor for needing cholecystectomy, most research excludes patients with higher degrees of obesity. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare postoperative pain and analgesic consumption in obese patients, who underwent either transvaginal hybrid Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) cholecystectomy (NC) or traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Methods Between 12/2008 and 01/2017, 237 NC were performed, of which 35 (14.8%) showed a body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m2 or more (obesity II and III according to the World Health Organization). Of these, procedural time, postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, and other early postoperative parameters were collected and compared with 35 matched LC patients from the same time period. Results There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups, but we found significant benefits for the hybrid NOTES technique in terms of less pain (P = 0.006), coherent with significantly less intake of peripheral (paracetamol; P = 0.005), and of centrally acting analgesics (piritramide; P = 0.047) within the first two-day post-surgery. We also found that those in the NC group had shorter hospital stays (P < 0.001). The postoperative complication rates and the procedural time did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion With regard to postoperative pain and analgesic requirements and without an increase in postoperative complications, obese patients experience short-term benefits from the hybrid NOTES technique compared to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

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.

The aim was to compare short-term results of transvaginal hybrid-NOTES (NSR) with traditional laparoscopic technique in sigmoid resection (LSR) in cases of diverticulitis. Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery has been evolved as a minimally invasive procedure to reduce the operative trauma due to the absence of specimen extraction through the abdominal wall causing less postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stay. Despite the increasing use and published case series of NSR for diverticulitis as a laparoscopic procedure with transvaginal stapling and specimen extraction, there are no studies comparing this procedure with LSR. Twenty NSR patients operated at the Cologne-Merheim Medical Center have been documented and compared with 20 female LSR patients matched for body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists-classification (ASA), Hansen/Stock classification, and age. To ensure comparability regarding peri- and postoperative care, only procedures performed by the same surgeon were included. Procedural time, intra- and postoperative complications, conversion rate, postoperative pain, the duration of an epidural catheter, analgesic consumption, and postoperative length of hospital stay were analyzed. There were no significant differences in the sum of pain levels (p = 0.930), length of procedure (p = 0.079), intra- and postoperative complications, as well as duration of an epidural catheter. On the contrary, there were significant positive effects for NSR on morphine requirement at day seven and eight (p = 0.019 and p = 0.035 respectively) as well as the postoperative length of hospital stay (p = 0.031). This retrospective study reveals significant positive effects for NSR compared to LSR regarding length of hospital stay as well as morphine consumption after removal of the epidural catheter, whereas there were no significant differences in complication rate and procedural time. In summary, NSR is an adequate alternative to traditional laparoscopic sigmoid resection considering the surgeons experience and the patient’s personal preferences.