chapter 1.pdf · minimally invasive endoscopic surgery closer to a once-elusive goal: incisionless...
TRANSCRIPT
1CHAPTERGEnERAl inTRoduCTion
And ouTlinE of THis THEsis
Peter van den Boezem
Intr
od
uctIo
n an
d th
esIs ou
tlIne
1bACkGROUNDThe introduction of laparoscopic techniques in the early 1990s revolutionized the field of
surgery. Many traditionally open procedures were replaced by minimally invasive techniques.
Laparoscopic surgery provides benefits to patients with regard to recovery, hospital stay,
postoperative morbidity, return to normal activities and cosmetic results1-7. Currently, the
laparoscopic approach has become the standard of care for most abdominal procedures,
including the treatment for gallstones and benign and malignant colonic diseases.
INTRODUCTION OF NOTES AND SINGLE-PORT SURGERYIn recent years, rapidly emerging technologies and improved techniques have blurred the
boundaries between gastro intestinal (GI) surgery and therapeutic GI endoscopy and brought
minimally invasive endoscopic surgery closer to a once-elusive goal: incisionless surgery.
NOTES (Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery) comprises a number of techniques,
in which a natural orifice is used to gain access to the peritoneal cavity instead of initiating
an operation with an incision through the skin. Natural orifices that can be used for a NOTES
procedure are the vagina, the urine bladder, the stomach, or the rectum8-11. NOTES challenges
the basic paradigm of surgery; the idea that it should be avoided to enter the lumen of an organ
to gain access into the patient’s abdominal cavity. Surgeons have always avoided to cross these
borders unless they were operating on that specific organ.
Advantages
In theory NOTES can have enormous advantages for the patient. The most obvious, but
perhaps least important benefit for patients is the absence of visible scars, resulting in an
optimal cosmetic result. The absence of abdominal scars also means no wound infections and
no long-term wound related complications such as hernias.
Other advantages of NOTES procedures when compared to conventional laparoscopy could be
related to the reduced invasiveness and the amount of surgical trauma caused by the access route.
The reduced amount of trauma could result in a faster postoperative recovery, reduced
postoperative pain and therefore a lower requirement of anaesthetic drugs and possibly a
shorter hospital stay. However, it will be difficult to prove that NOTES is less painful than current
minor laparoscopic procedures such as an appendectomy. Larger and more complex procedures
such as colorectal surgery are possibly better indicated to compare the postoperative pain
profiles. However, reports describing colorectal NOTES are still scarce and it could therefore
take a while before comparative studies will be carried out. Nonetheless, Marks et al. reported
in 2007 a PEG rescue procedure and entered the peritoneal cavity under conscious sedation in
a monitored care setting without the use of general anaesthesia12.
Current Challenges
By performing transgastric peritoneoscopies in porcine models, Kalloo et al. were regarded
as the first to describe a NOTES procedure in 2004 and attracted tremendous interest from
9
1
Intr
od
uctIo
n an
d th
esIs ou
tlIne
surgeons and gastroenterologists around the world13. NOTES could be the logical next step in
performing laparoscopic surgery. The challenges posed by NOTES surgery where thoroughly
addressed in a “white paper” published in 200614 (Table 1). A working group called NOSCAR
(Natural Orifice Surgery Consortium for Assessment and Research) wrote this paper. Although
research and publications have shown an exponential growth since 2005, most of these
challenges remain a threshold to the widespread introduction of NOTES in 2012.
Table 1. Potential barriers to clinical practice
Access to peritoneal cavity
Gastric (intestinal) closure
Prevention of infection
Development of suturing device
Spatial orientation
Development of a multitasking platform
Control of intraperitoneal hemorrhage
Compression syndromes
Training other providers
Management of iatrogenic intraperitoneal complications
Physiologic untoward events
Adapted from “white paper” 14
The peritoneal cavity can be accessed through mouth, vagina, rectum and urinebladder. Safe
access and safe closure of these entry points is crucial for implementation in day-to-day clinical
practice such as cholecystectomy or appendectomy. Current laparoscopy is safe and access
related morbidity is very low15, thus even a leakage rate of 1 or 2% after a NOTES procedure is not
acceptable. Yet the stomach and the rectum, may be prone to complications from infections,
should an incision fail to close properly. This is the main challenge for all NOTES procedures and
in particular those who use the oral route16.
The vaginal route is probably the easiest incision to close, as it can be done under direct
vision, without the use of any special instruments. Moreover, transvaginal access is routine for
gynaecologic surgeons and they have developed great experience with hydrolaparoscopy17.
Nonetheless, many GI surgeons question the safety of the transvaginal route. Several
publications have emphasized the possible impact on fertility and change in sexual function18-20.
Younger nulliparous women express the greatest concern with any change in sexual functioning.
On the other hand these patients are most concerned with cosmesis and are therefore ideally
suited for NOTES. To our knowledge, there is no evidence in literature that supports a negative
impact on fertility at this moment.
Prevention of infection is another issue that has to be addressed. It is difficult to create a
sterile environment and access through another organ may increase the risk of intraperitoneal
infection and contamination. However, during regular laparoscopic or open bowel surgery,
10
Intr
od
uctIo
n an
d th
esIs ou
tlIne
1minor contamination is also common and well tolerated. In a study on female pigs, the
intraperitoneal bacterial load and contamination during transgastric and transvaginal surgery
was investigated21. The transvaginal approach proved to be safer and produced less intra-
abdominal contamination and sepsis, compared to the transgastric approach.
Besides a fear for an increase in complications caused by the access route, there is also a fear for an
increase of complications due to an increased complexity. The reduced freedom of motion during
NOTES procedures makes it more complex. The loss of spatial orientation is probably a bigger
problem for surgeons than for gastroenterologists. Gastroenterologists are accustomed to working
in-line with the camera because all instruments pass through working channels on the endoscope
in contrast to laparoscopic surgeons, who work with different access sites (if not performing a
Single-Port procedure). Loss of triangulation is also an issue that has to be encountered. If the
principles learned in advanced laparoscopic surgery are applicable to NOTES, then orientation, as
well as triangulation, will be fundamental requirements for any NOTES procedure14. Development of
multitasking platforms could be helpful to overcome these problems.
A considerable amount of work in this thesis is devoted to new techniques for cholecystectomies.
A pivotal step during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the visualization of “critical view of safety”
(CVS) according to the safety rules of Strasberg 22,23. Adherence to these rules minimises the risk
of bile duct injuries. Loss of spatial orientation and triangulation makes it more difficult to reach
CVS. NOTES can only be competitive with current surgical techniques if differences in speed
and facility are minimal with (at least) equal safety of the procedures. As a result of loss of spatial
orientation and triangulation progress during more complex procedures is slow. We regard a
cholecystectomy already as a complex procedure because of the dissection in a small area and the
subsequent need to obtain CVS. An increase in procedure related complications is not acceptable.
Attempting to replace the most frequently performed and successful laparoscopic procedures is
extremely difficult. Regular laparoscopic procedures as cholecystectomy and appendectomy are
associated with a low risk of morbidity and a very low risk of mortality combined with a high level
of patient satisfaction, so there is only little room left for improvement24.
ACCESS ROUTEAll these challenges have divided research and development of NOTES. Gastroenterologists
focus mostly on the transgastric and transesophageal route, endoscopic surgeons have
explored the transvaginal route en more recently the transrectal route.
Independent of the route, safe introduction in the abdomen is essential. Pure NOTES
procedures are therefore rare at this moment and most procedures are currently performed
as a hybrid technique. During a hybrid NOTES procedure an extra 5 mm trocar is placed at
the umbilicus to provide a safe entry through vagina or stomach. Currently, the transvaginal
approach is the most popular. It provides a safe entry, a simple closure and the opportunity to
utilize regular laparoscopic instruments21.
11
1
Intr
od
uctIo
n an
d th
esIs ou
tlIne
Transvaginal
The anatomical basis for the transvaginal approach is the wide posterior fundus of the vagina
formed as a result of the anteversion position of the uterus25. As it is not adherent to the anterior
face of the rectum and has no interposed organ or anatomical structure, it allows direct entry to
the peritoneum. The absence of pain nerves in the fornix posterior is a great benefit and makes
it even possible to perform a hydrolaparoscopy under local anesthesia26. Contra indications for
transvaginal NOTES include radiotherapy and major surgery in the pelvis. As a result of an infection
or a history of endometriosis, the Douglas pouch can shrink and thus making it difficult to insert
a trocar without damaging a bowel. Most reported concerns with the transvaginal route focus
on fear for dyspareunia, infertility and withdrawal of sexual intercourse for a number of weeks27.
Transrectal
Dutch surgeons have a wide experience with transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM ) for transanal
surgery28,29. TEM is used for the excision of both benign and malignant rectal tumours, but is relatively
expensive and can be a challenging technique. Combination of Single-Port techniques and NOTES
has increased the possibilities for TEM procedures and colorectal surgery in general. Transrectal
specimen extraction after a laparoscopic sigmoid resection is an example of natural orifice specimen
extraction30. Currently, NOTES techniques are applied to rectal surgery. Visualization of the pelvic
anatomy is excellent compared to open and laparoscopic rectal procedures.
Transgastric
Endoscopic gastroenterologists have developed significant experience with transgastric
drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts and pancreatic necrosis, most of which are found in
a retrogastric position31. It was only a small step to relocate the gastrostomy to the anterior
gastric wall and advance the endoscope into the peritoneal cavity13. Several devices have been
developed and tested in animal models and are currently tested in trials with humans10,12,32-37. The
safety of performing a transgastric staging peritoneoscopy prior to a pancreaticoduodenectomy
has also been extensively demonstrated38.
Transesophageal access using a submucosal tunnel is another well-studied NOTES approach39.
Lymph node biopsy following mediastinoscopy has been carried out in animal experiments and
could be helpful in lung cancer staging in the future40. Promising results have been reported for
the peroral endoscopic myotomy procedure (POEM) in the treatment of achalasia41.
The gallbladder is one of the major targets of NOTES reseachers42. It can be challenged whether
the transgastric access is ideal for approaching the gallbladder. From a geometric point of view
the transvaginal, or theoretical transcolonic, access provides a straight route to the upper
abdomen diminishing the need for complicated and expensive flexible devices.
The transgastric route is not subject to discussion of this thesis and the techniques are therefore
not discussed in detail.
12
Intr
od
uctIo
n an
d th
esIs ou
tlIne
1
Gastroenterology & Hepatology Volume 8, Issue 6 June 2012 387
N a t u r a l O r I f I c e t r a N s l u m e N a l e N d O s c O p I c s u r G e r y
undergo the new procedures, although they were interested in performing them.40 More recent surveys from Switzer-land, Australia, and the United States have revealed that women may be more interested in undergoing transvaginal gynecologic operations than general surgical operations.41,42 Overwhelming patient requests for new procedures—as seen with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the early 1990s—has not been the driving force for further develop-ment of NOTES technology.
What Procedures Can Endoscopists Start Performing Immediately with Minimal Training? One procedure that endoscopists can start performing immediately is PEG rescue. Using a NOTES technique, Marks and colleagues treated a patient with a dislodged PEG tube that had been recently placed.7 A Gastrografin study revealed that the tube was in the peritoneal cavity. The technique involved passing the endoscope through the existing gastrostomy site, inspecting and suctioning the peritoneal cavity, replacing a wire through the tube via the peritoneal cavity back in the gastric lumen, and repositioning the PEG tube. The technical skill involved was not significantly different from that needed to place the PEG tube in the first place. It is important to utilize carbon dioxide insufflation if pneumoperitoneum is expected and to observe the abdominal pressure closely. This procedure was performed at the patient’s bedside under conscious sedation.7 Alternatively, the patient would have required a
general anesthetic agent and a laparoscopy or laparotomy to reposition the tube.
Additional avenues currently available are judiciously entering the peritoneal (or thoracic) cavity to interrogate selected fistulae or anastomotic leaks, possible irrigation, and closure by stenting, clipping, or suturing. The same can be done for iatrogenic perforations following endoscopic procedures. Transgastric lavage and drainage of pancreatic necrosis in a fluid phase with sepsis can have a dramatic benefit. The safety of performing a transgastric staging peritoneoscopy prior to a pancreaticoduodenectomy has also been extensively demonstrated.9
Of note, all of the staging peritoneoscopies have been performed in the operating room with the intention of performing a gastric anastomosis at the endoscopic gastrostomy site, thus avoiding endoscopic closure. Introduction of the submucosal endoscopic mucosal flap technique for safe offset access to the peritoneum may provide an expanded margin of safety and a larger operator pool.
What Procedures Can Minimally Invasive Surgeons Perform That Are New and Meet an Unmet Need? Many minimally invasive surgeons also perform endo-scopy and PEG placement. They can immediately start using the technique outlined above, facilitated by the familiar environment of the peritoneal cavity, albeit with a different visuospatial orientation.
Figure 1. Contributions, interactions, and possible future developments in interventional techniques.
NOTES=natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery.
Laparoscopy
Endoscopy
Single-port laparoscopy
Next-generation endoscopyCatheter-based techniques,�exible and mini-robotics
NOTES
Figure 1. Contributions, interactions and possible future developments.Reproduced, with permission24.
SINGLE-PORT SURGERYDuring the development of NOTES, the single-incision laparoscopy trocar was introduced as a
new scarless approach and considered as a spin-off of all NOTES-related research. Due to the
technical skills required for NOTES procedures and the slow development of NOTES devices, the
field of medical practitioners who could easily adopt to NOTES did not appear to be very large.
With the introduction of Single-Port trocars these problems were partially overcome. One of
the most important advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) over NOTES is
the possibility to use conventional laparoscopic instruments. This has currently led to an overall
greater acceptance of SILS than NOTES 43-46. The market for SILS is projected to encompass 25%
of all laparoscopy procedures by 2014, with many more surgeons able to perform this approach
than NOTES24. Using SILS, multiport laparoscopic procedures can be performed through one
small incision, often hidden in the umbilicus. A SILS port can also be used at a future ileo- or
colostomy site or even transanally as discussed in this thesis.
However, many of the previously mentioned challenges during NOTES procedures are also
applicable to the principle of SILS. But the challenges during SILS are probably easier to
overcome and therefore SILS can be seen as an intermediate step in the development and
implementation of NOTES. SILS results in a minor scar when used at the umbilicus, but potential
complications like a wound infection or a postoperative hernia are still possible.
The SILS technique can be used for a wide range of laparoscopic procedures. Pioneers with
the SILS technique all started to utilise this technique for cholecystectomies47-49 and to a
lesser extent appendctomies50 and in urology51. As discussed earlier, loss of triangulation and
spatial orientation has to be overcome. If two straight instruments are used in a SILS port
during a dissection in a small area, like a cholecystectomy, clashing of the instruments is
unavoidable. By using roticulating instruments, a wider range of motion could be created at
13
1
Intr
od
uctIo
n an
d th
esIs ou
tlIne
the tip of the instruments. However, roticulating instruments also increase the complexity of
the procedure (Fig 2).
OUTLINE OF ThIS ThESIS The aim of this thesis is to study the introduction of new minimal invasive techniques such
as NOTES and SILS, that can be used within the field of abdominal surgery and in particular
laparoscopic surgery.
In chapter 2 we evaluate our initial experiences with the SILS trocar for cholecystectomies. In
a case-control setting, the SILS cholecystectomy is compared to the conventional four port
laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
As our experience increased with the SILS technique, we also started to perform single incision
laparoscopic colectomies (SILC). It was first used for benign indications, but we rapidly expanded
to malignant indications. In chapter 3 we discuss the results of our first 50 consecutive cases.
One of the most performed SILC procedures is a right colectomy. Chapter 4 is a two centre,
prospective case control study in which the short-term surgical outcomes after SILC and
multiport laparoscopic right colectomy are evaluated.
Our research group is the first group in the Netherlands to perform a hybrid-transvaginal
cholecystectomy on a regular basis. In chapter 5 the feasibility of this procedure is investigated.
Chapter 6 evaluates the clinical outcomes of our first year performing transvaginal
cholecystectomies. Patient related outcomes such as body image and cosmesis are also evaluated.
In chapter 7 we evaluate the clinical and cosmetic outcomes of a case control study comparing
single incision, transvaginal and conventional laparoscopic techniques for cholecystectomy.
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is widely used for the excision of both benign and
malignant rectal tumours. TEM is relatively expensive and can be a challenging technique. Even
Figure 2. multiport laparoscopy (A) versus SILS (B-E) hand instruments and orientations.Reproduced, with permission52.
14
Intr
od
uctIo
n an
d th
esIs ou
tlIne
1though not developed for transanal use, the SILS port could be ideal because of its shape and texture.
Chapter 8 is a feasibility study in which a SILS port is used for transanal resection of large polyps.
In patients with rectal cancer it can be difficult to dissect the rectum below the tumor. In chapter
9 we discuss the results of a feasibility study in which we conduct a hybrid NOTES procedure to
mobilise the rectum transrectally with the use of a single port in the rectum.
The general discussion (chapter 10) summarizes the main findings of this thesis and discusses
future perspectives.
15
1
Intr
od
uctIo
n an
d th
esIs ou
tlIne
REFERENCES1. Barkun JS, Barkun AN, Sampalis JS, et al.
Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus mini cholecystectomy. The McGill Gallstone Treatment Group. Lancet. Nov 7 1992;340(8828):1116-1119.
2. McMahon AJ, Russell IT, Baxter JN, et al. Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial. Lancet. Jan 15 1994;343(8890):135-138.
3. Keus F, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ. Open, small-incision, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. An overview of Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(1):CD008318.
4. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol. Jul 20 2007;25(21):3061-3068.
5. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study G. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. May 13 2004;350(20):2050-2059.
6. Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study G, Buunen M, Veldkamp R, et al. Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. Jan 2009;10(1):44-52.
7. Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. Jun 29 2002;359(9325):2224-2229.
8. Branco F, Pini G, Osorio L, et al. Transvesical peritoneoscopy with rigid scope: feasibility study in human male cadaver. Surg Endosc. Dec 22 2010.
9. Zornig C, Mofid H, Siemssen L, et al. Transvaginal NOTES hybrid cholecystectomy: feasibility results in 68 cases with mid-term follow-up. Endoscopy. May 2009;41(5):391-394.
10. Salinas G, Saavedra L, Agurto H, et al. Early experience in human hybrid transgastric and transvaginal endoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. May 2010;24(5):1092-1098.
11. Leroy J, Cahill RA, Perretta S, Forgione A, Dallemagne B, Marescaux J. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) applied totally to sigmoidectomy: an original technique with survival in a porcine model. Surg Endosc. Jan 2009;23(1):24-30.
12. Marks JM, Ponsky JL, Pearl JP, McGee MF. PEG “Rescue”: a practical NOTES technique. Surg Endosc. May 2007;21(5):816-819.
13. Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, et al. Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc. Jul 2004;60(1):114-117.
14. Rattner D, Kalloo A, Group ASW. ASGE/SAGES Working Group on Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery. October 2005. Surg Endosc. Feb 2006;20(2):329-333.
15. Deziel DJ, Millikan KW, Economou SG, Doolas A, Ko ST, Airan MC. Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a national survey of 4,292 hospitals and an analysis of 77,604 cases. Am J Surg. Jan 1993;165(1):9-14.
16. Zorron R, Palanivelu C, Galvao Neto MP, et al. International multicenter trial on clinical natural orifice surgery--NOTES IMTN study: preliminary results of 362 patients. Surg Innov. Jun 2010;17(2):142-158.
17. Shibahara H, Shimada K, Kikuchi K, et al. Major complications and outcome of diagnostic and operative transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. Oct 2007;33(5):705-709.
18. Targarona EM, Maldonado EM, Marzol JA, Marinello F. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: The transvaginal route moving forward from cholecystectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg. Jun 27 2010;2(6):179-186.
19. Peterson CY, Ramamoorthy S, Andrews B, Horgan S, Talamini M, Chock A. Women’s positive perception of transvaginal NOTES surgery. Surg Endosc. Aug 2009;23(8):1770-1774.
20. Strickland AD, Norwood MG, Behnia-Willison F, Olakkengil SA, Hewett PJ. Transvaginal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a survey of women’s views on a new technique. Surg Endosc. Oct 2010;24(10):2424-2431.
21. Lomanto D, Chua HC, Myat MM, So J, Shabbir A, Ho L. Microbiological contamination during transgastric and transvaginal endoscopic techniques. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. Aug 2009;19(4):465-469.
22. Strasberg SM, Brunt LM. Rationale and use of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J.Am.Coll.Surg. 2010;211(1):132-138.
23. Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ. An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J.Am.Coll.Surg. 1995;180(1):101-125.
24. Bingener J, Gostout CJ. Update on natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). Jun 2012;8(6):384-389.
16
Intr
od
uctIo
n an
d th
esIs ou
tlIne
125. Moran EA, Gostout CJ. Anatomical considerations
for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Clin Anat. Jul 2009;22(5):627-632.
26. Gordts S, Campo R, Rombauts L, Brosens I. Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy as an outpatient procedure for infertility investigation. Hum Reprod. Jan 1998;13(1):99-103.
27. Bucher P, Ostermann S, Pugin F, Morel P. Female population perception of conventional laparoscopy, transumbilical LESS, and transvaginal NOTES for cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. Jul 2011;25(7):2308-2315.
28. Barendse RM, Fockens P, Bemelman WA, de Graaf EJ, Dekker E. The significant rectal neoplasm and mucosectomy by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (Br J Surg 2011; 98: 1342-1344). Br J Surg. Oct 2011;98(10):1495.
29. de Graaf EJ, Doornebosch PG, Tetteroo GW, Geldof H, Hop WC. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery is feasible for adenomas throughout the entire rectum: a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum. Jun 2009;52(6):1107-1113.
30. Wolthuis AM, Van Geluwe B, Fieuws S, Penninckx F, D’Hoore A. Laparoscopic sigmoid resection with transrectal specimen extraction: a Systematic Review. Colorectal Dis. Oct 24 2011.
31. Bakker OJ, van Santvoort HC, van Brunschot S, et al. Endoscopic transgastric vs surgical necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized trial. JAMA. Mar 14 2012;307(10):1053-1061.
32. Voermans RP, Worm AM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Breedveld P, Bemelman WA, Fockens P. In vitro comparison and evaluation of seven gastric closure modalities for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Endoscopy. Jul 2008;40(7):595-601.
33. Voermans RP, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bemelman WA, Fockens P. Novel over-the-scope-clip system for gastrotomy closure in natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): an ex vivo comparison study. Endoscopy. Dec 2009;41(12):1052-1055.
34. Nikfarjam M, McGee MF, Trunzo JA, et al. Transgastric natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery peritoneoscopy in humans: a pilot study in efficacy and gastrotomy site selection by using a hybrid technique. Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 2010;72(2):279-283.
35. Schomisch SJ, Furlan JP, Andrews JM, Trunzo JA, Ponsky JL, Marks JM. Comparison of anterior transgastric access techniques for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. Dec 2011;25(12):3906-3911.
36. Trunzo JA, Cavazzola LT, Elmunzer BJ, et al. Facilitating gastrotomy closure during natural-
orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery using tissue anchors. Endoscopy. Jun 2009;41(6):487-492.
37. Trunzo JA, McGee MF, Cavazzola LT, et al. Peritoneal inflammatory response of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) versus laparoscopy with carbon dioxide and air pneumoperitoneum. Surg Endosc. Jul 2010;24(7):1727-1736.
38. Nau P, Anderson J, Yuh B, et al. Diagnostic transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy: extension of the initial human trial for staging of pancreatic head masses. Surg Endosc. Jun 2010;24(6):1440-1446.
39. Bonin EA, Moran E, Bingener J, Knipschield M, Gostout CJ. A comparative study of endoscopic full-thickness and partial-thickness myotomy using submucosal endoscopy with mucosal safety flap (SEMF) technique. Surg Endosc. Jun 2012;26(6):1751-1758.
40. Fritscher-Ravens A, Cuming T, Olagbaiye F, et al. Endoscopic transesophageal vs. thoracoscopic removal of mediastinal lymph nodes: a prospective randomized trial in a long term animal survival model. Endoscopy. Dec 2011;43(12):1090-1096.
41. Swanstrom LL, Kurian A, Dunst CM, Sharata A, Bhayani N, Rieder E. Long-term outcomes of an endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: the POEM procedure. Ann Surg. Oct 2012;256(4):659-667.
42. Dallemagne B, Perretta S, Allemann P, et al. Transgastric cholecystectomy: From the laboratory to clinical implementation. World J Gastrointest Surg. Jun 27 2010;2(6):187-192.
43. Chamberlain RS, Sakpal SV. A comprehensive review of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) techniques for cholecystectomy. Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. Sep 2009;13(9):1733-1740.
44. Chow A, Purkayastha S, Aziz O, Pefanis D, Paraskeva P. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy: a retrospective comparison with 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg. Dec 2010;145(12):1187-1191.
45. Kehagias I, Karamanakos SN, Markopoulos GA, Kalfarentzos F. Benefits and Drawbacks of SILS Cholecystectomy: A Report of 60 SILS Cholecystectomies With Conventional Instrumentation From an Academic Center. Surgical innovation. Apr 11 2012.
46. Rivas H, Varela E, Scott D. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial evaluation of a large series of patients. Surgical endoscopy. Jun 2010;24(6):1403-1412.
17
1
Intr
od
uctIo
n an
d th
esIs ou
tlIne
47. Cuesta MA, Berends F, Veenhof AA. The “invisible cholecystectomy”: A transumbilical laparoscopic operation without a scar. Surg.Endosc. 2008;22(5):1211-1213.
48. Tacchino R, Greco F, Matera D. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: surgery without a visible scar. Surg.Endosc. 2009;23(4):896-899.
49. Chow A, Purkayastha S, Aziz O, Paraskeva P. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy: an evolving technique. Surg.Endosc. 2010;24(3):709-714.
50. Chow A, Purkayastha S, Paraskeva P. Appendicectomy and cholecystectomy using single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS): the first UK experience. Surg.Innov. 2009;16(3):211-217.
51. Ahmed K, Wang TT, Patel VM, et al. The role of single-incision laparoscopic surgery in abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review. Surg.Endosc. 2010.
52. Saber AA, El-Ghazaly TH, Dewoolkar AV, Slayton SA. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: technical considerations and strategic modifications. Surg Obes Relat Dis. Nov-Dec 2010;6(6):658-664.
18