Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 67, Issue 6 , Pages 854-860, May 2008

Patient perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery as a technique for cholecystectomy

Current affiliations: Division of Gastroenterology-Hepatology (S.V., A.T.) and Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery (E.R.D.), University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Received 31 July 2007; accepted 25 September 2007. published online 25 March 2008.

Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Background

Although the concept of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) as a minimally invasive surgical technique is gaining increasing popularity, patient perception toward NOTES is unclear. Because cholecystectomy is the most common laparoscopic procedure, the concept of NOTES was examined in this context.

Aim

To evaluate patient perception of NOTES as a potential technique for a cholecystectomy.

Patients

Those patients with an intact gallbladder who were undergoing an EUS or an ERCP for evaluation of abdominal pain, pancreatitis, or suspected choledocholithiasis.

Setting

Tertiary-referral center.

Design

Cross-sectional survey.

Methods

One hundred patients were given a questionnaire that described the technique, the complication rates, and benefits of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The concept of NOTES was then described in detail, with possible orifices being the mouth, the rectum, and the vagina. Patients were queried about their preference for a cholecystectomy technique (LC vs NOTES), choice of orifice, and the risks that they were willing to undergo for NOTES.

Results

Of the 100 patients, 78% preferred NOTES, and 22% preferred LC. The mean age of the patients was 45 years; 36% of patients were men, 70% were white, and 83% had undergone a prior endoscopy; no significant differences were observed between the NOTES and LC groups for these characteristics. In multivariable modeling, those with age ≤ 50 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.3, P = .61), female sex (OR 2.1, P = .14), and prior endoscopy experience (OR 2.2, P = .19) were more likely to prefer NOTES than an LC. There was no difference in preference for NOTES between whites and nonwhites (OR 1.0, P = .98). The most common reasons for NOTES preference were lack of external pain (99%) and scarring (89%). Among the patients who preferred NOTES, for both men (23/25 [92%]) and women (43/53 [81%]), the oral route was the preferred orifice. A decreasing trend of patient preference for NOTES was observed with increased procedural complications: patient preference was 100% if complications were <3%, 97% if complications were equal to 3%, 15% if complications were 6%, and 6% if complications were 9%.

Limitations

A selective cohort of patients was evaluated.

Conclusions

Patients preferred NOTES to laparoscopy as the technique for cholecystectomy as long as the complication rates were comparable with current standards of LC. The oral orifice appeared to be the preferred approach for most patients. Given this favorable perception, further innovations in NOTES-related technology and refinements in procedural technique are justified.

Abbreviations: LC, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, NOTES, Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, OR, odds ratio, SAGES, Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons, UAB, University of Alabama at Birmingham

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0016-5107(07)02840-4

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2007.09.053

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 67, Issue 6 , Pages 854-860, May 2008