Transvesical Endoscopic Port in Abdominal Surgery: An Updated Perspective

Lima, Estêvão; Autorino, Riccardo; Correia‐Pinto, Jorge

doi:10.1007/s11934-010-0097-5

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This route potentially provides several advantages as it is naturally sterile, it provides a favourable location by allowing peritoneal access above the bowel loops, it allows the introduction of rigid instruments and it is of course available in both genders. Of course, disadvantages have been also recognised and they remain to be addressed .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): where are we going? A bibliometric assessment

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The safe and successful development of NOTES has the potential to create a paradigm shift in minimally invasive surgery. However, anecdotal diagnostic and therapeutic NOTES procedures, many of which were strictly performed in an investigative fashion, have taught us that continued, focused translational research is imperative to address myriad, and as yet unaddressed, technical issue. This study analyses the NOTES‐related research in the medical literature over the last 5 years in an attempt to identify trends and/or progress towards its meaningful use. It shows that NOTES is still in a developmental stage and much work is still needed to refine techniques, verify safety and document efficacy. Since the first description of the concept of NOTES, >2000 clinical cases, irrespective of specialty, have been reported. NOTES remains a field of intense clinical and experimental research in various surgical specialties. The aim of this study was to analyse natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)‐related publications over the last 5 years. A systematic literature search was done to retrieve publications related to NOTES from 2006 to 2011. The following variables were recorded: year of publication; article type; study design; setting; Journal Citation Reports® journal category; authors area of surgical speciality; geographic area of origin; surgical procedure; NOTES technique; NOTES access route; number of clinical cases. A time‐trend analysis was performed by comparing early (2006–2008) and late (2009–2011) study periods. Overall, 644 publications were included in the analysis and most papers were found in general surgery journals (50.9%). Studies were most frequently clinical series (43.9%) and animal experimental (48%), with the articles focusing primarily on cholecystectomy, access creation and closure, and peritoneoscopy. Pure NOTES techniques were performed in most of the published reports (85%) with the remaining cases being hybrid NOTES (7.4%) and NOTES‐assisted procedures (6.1%). The access routes included transgastric (52.5%), transcolonic (12.3%), transvesical (12.5%), transvaginal (10.5%), and combined (12.3%). From the early to the late period, there was a significant increase in the number of randomised controlled trials (5.6% vs 7.2%) or non‐randomised but comparative studies (5.6% vs 22.9%) (P < 0.001) and there was also a significant increase in the number of colorectal procedures and nephrectomies (P = 0.002). Pure NOTES remained the most studied approach over the years but with increased investigation in the field of NOTES‐assisted techniques (P = 0.001). There was also a significant increase in the adoption of transvesical access (7% vs 15.6%) (P = 0.007). NOTES is in a developmental stage and much work is still needed to refine techniques, verify safety and document efficacy. Since the first description of the concept of NOTES, >2000 clinical cases, irrespective of specialty, have been reported. NOTES remains a field of intense...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): where are we going? A bibliometric assessment

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The outer diameter of the rigid ports ranged in size between 21 and 26 mm. Furthermore, there have been reports on both transcolonic access using standard 12 mm laparoscopic ports as well as transvesical access through an endoscopically created cystotomy using a standard flexible ureteroscope [22,23]. The Transport multitasking platform (USGI Medical, San Clemente, CA, USA) has an outer diameter of 20 mm and was inserted transvaginally into the peritoneum through a posterior colpotomy created with an endoscopic needle knife.…”

Section: Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery Access Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%