Transvaginal/transumbilical hybrid--NOTES--versus 3-trocar needlescopic cholecystectomy: short-term results of a randomized clinical trial

Dirk Rolf Bulian, Jürgen Knuth, Nicola Cerasani, Axel Sauerwald, Rolf Lefering, Markus Maria Heiss, Dirk Rolf Bulian, Jürgen Knuth, Nicola Cerasani, Axel Sauerwald, Rolf Lefering, Markus Maria Heiss

Abstract

Objective: For cholecystectomy, both the needlescopic cholecystectomy (NC) 3-trocar technique using 2 to 3 mm trocars and the umbilical-assisted transvaginal cholecystectomy (TVC) technique have found their way into clinical routine. This study compares these 2 techniques in female patients who are in need of an elective cholecystectomy.

Background: Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a surgical concept permitting scarless intra-abdominal operations through natural orifices, such as the vagina. Because of the lack of an adequately powered trial, we designed this first randomized controlled study for the comparison of TVC and NC.

Methods: This prospective, randomized, nonblinded, single-center trial evaluates the safety and effectiveness of TVC (intervention), compared with NC (control) in female patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. The primary endpoint was intensity of pain until the morning of postoperative day (POD) 2. Secondary outcomes were among others intra- and postoperative complications, procedural time, amount of analgesics used, pain intensity until POD 10, duration of hospital stay, satisfaction with the aesthetic result, and quality of life on POD 10 as quantified with the Eypasch Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI).

Results: Between February 2010 and June 2012, 40 patients were randomly assigned to the interventional or control group. All patients completed follow-up. Procedural time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and the rate of intra- and postoperative complications were similar in the 2 groups. However, significant advantages were found for the transvaginal access regarding pain until POD 2, but also until POD 10 (P = 0.043 vs P = 0.010) despite significantly less use of peripheral analgesics (P = 0.019). In the TVC group, patients were significantly more satisfied with the aesthetic result (P < 0.001) and had a significantly better GIQLI (P = 0.028).

Conclusions: Although comparable in terms of safety, TVC caused less pain, increased satisfaction with the aesthetic result, and improved postoperative quality of life in the short term.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: Supported in part by the German Ministry of Research and Education (CHIR-Net Grant, BMBF No. 01-GH-0605). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Trial profile.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.
Boxplots for the primary outcome measure (single NRS-11 scores of both groups compared with the respective quarter overall median).

References

    1. Barkun JS, Barkun AN, Sampalis JS, et al. Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus mini cholecystectomy. The McGill Gallstone Treatment Group. Lancet. 1992;340:1116–1119.
    1. Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, et al. Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet. 1996;347:989–994.
    1. Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Spangenberger W, et al. Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Cholecystectomy Study Group. Br J Surg. 1991;78:150–154.
    1. McCloy R, Randall D, Schug SA, et al. Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:2541–2553.
    1. Hosono S, Osaka H. Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2007;17:191–199.
    1. Gurusamy KS, Samraj K, Ramamoorthy R, et al. Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;17:CD006804.
    1. Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, et al. Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:458–464.
    1. Lehmann KS, Ritz JP, Wibmer A, et al. The German registry for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: report of the first 551 patients. Ann Surg. 2010;252:263–270.
    1. Zornig C, Emmermann A, von Waldenfels HA, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy without visible scar: combined transvaginal and transumbilical approach. Endoscopy. 2007;39:913–915.
    1. Kilian M, Raue W, Menenakos C, et al. Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. “conventional” laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011;396:709–715.
    1. Hensel M, Schernikau U, Schmidt A, et al. Comparison between transvaginal and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective case-control study. Zentralbl Chir. 2012;137:48–54.
    1. Santos BF, Teitelbaum EN, Arafat FO, et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes between transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:3058–3066.
    1. Bulian DR, Trump L, Knuth J, et al. Less pain after transvaginal/transumbilical cholecystectomy than after the classical laparoscopic technique: short-term results of a matched-cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:580–586.
    1. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002;359:614–618.
    1. Hartrick CT, Kovan JP, Shapiro S. The numeric rating scale for clinical pain measurement: a ratio measure? Pain Practice. 2003;3:310–316.
    1. Eypasch E, Williams JI, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg. 1995;82:216–222.
    1. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213.
    1. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–196.
    1. Cepeda MS, Africano JM, Polo R, et al. What decline in pain intensity is meaningful to patients with acute pain? Pain. 2003;105:151–157.
    1. 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;20:CD008318.
    1. Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, et al. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;20:CD003145.
    1. Peters MJ, Mukhtar A, Yunus RM, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:1548–61; quiz 1547, 1562.
    1. Delvaux G, Devroey P, De Waele B, et al. Transvaginal removal of gallbladders with large stones after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1993;3:307–309.
    1. Emmermann A, Zornig C, Peiper M, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy. Technique and results in a series of 27 cases. Surg Endosc. 1995;9:924–927.
    1. Marescaux J, Dallemagne B, Perretta S, et al. Surgery without scars: report of transluminal cholecystectomy in a human being. Arch Surg. 2007;142:823–826; discussion 826–827.
    1. Bessler M, Stevens PD, Milone L, et al. Transvaginal laparoscopically assisted endoscopic cholecystectomy: a hybrid approach to natural orifice surgery. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:1243–1245.
    1. Dolz C, Noguera JF, Martin A, et al. [Transvaginal cholecystectomy (NOTES) combined with minilaparoscopy]. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2007;99:698–702.
    1. Ramos AC, Murakami A, Galvao Neto M, et al. NOTES transvaginal video-assisted cholecystectomy: first series. Endoscopy. 2008;40:572–575.
    1. Zornig C, Mofid H, Siemssen L, et al. Transvaginal NOTES hybrid cholecystectomy: feasibility results in 68 cases with mid-term follow-up. Endoscopy. 2009;41:391–394.
    1. Linke GR, Tarantino I, Hoetzel R, et al. Transvaginal rigid-hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy: evaluation in routine clinical practice. Endoscopy. 2010;42:571–575.
    1. Federlein M, Borchert D, Muller V, et al. Transvaginal video-assisted cholecystectomy in clinical practice. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2444–2452.
    1. Hensel M, Schernikau U, Schmidt A, et al. Surgical outcome and midterm follow-up after transvaginal NOTES hybrid cholecystectomy: analysis of a prospective clinical series. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011;21:101–106.
    1. Nijhawan S, Barajas-Gamboa JS, Majid S, et al. NOTES transvaginal hybrid cholecystectomy: the United States human experience. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:514–517.
    1. Noguera JF, Cuadrado A, Dolz C, et al. [Non-randomised, comparative, prospective study of transvaginal endoscopic cholecystectomy versus transparietal laparoscopic cholecystectomy]. Cir Esp. 2009;85:287–291.
    1. Zornig C, Siemssen L, Emmermann A, et al. NOTES cholecystectomy: matched-pair analysis comparing the transvaginal hybrid and conventional laparoscopic techniques in a series of 216 patients. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1822–1826.
    1. Solomon D, Shariff AH, Silasi DA, et al. Transvaginal cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2823–2827.
    1. Borchert D, Federlein M, Ruckbeil O, et al. Prospective evaluation of transvaginal assisted cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:3597–3604.
    1. Noguera JF, Cuadrado A, Dolz C, et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) (NCT00835250). Surg Endosc. 2012;26:3435–3441.
    1. Al-Azawi D, Houssein N, Rayis AB, et al. Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute and chronic cholecystitis. BMC Surg. 2007;7:8.
    1. Monkhouse SJ, Court EL, Beard LA, et al. A retrospective wound review of standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is there need for single-port laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endosc. 2012;26:255–260.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다