Transvesical NOTES: Survival study in porcine model

0Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The optimal access route and method for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has not been established. A transvesical approach, with its low rate of peritoneal contamination, is an effective clean portal of entry, but a safe urinary bladder closure has been a challenge. We developed a new technique for a safe, pure transvesical NOTES approach. Methods: Four female piglets were used in the study. With the pigs under anesthesia, a flexible cystoscope (15Fr) was used to make an endoscopic cystotomy; diagnostic peritoneoscopy of the abdominal quadrants was done with biopsies and hemostasis. At the end, a Vicryl loop was pushed to close the bladder incision while the incision edges were pulled inwards. The pigs were euthanized after 2 wk, and necropsies were performed. Results: No bowel injury was noted in any of the 4 pigs. Satisfactory bladder closure was done in 2 pigs, while a partial closure was achieved in 1 case. In the postoperative period, the pigs showed no signs of pain or distress, voided normally, and had a good appetite. On necropsy, we noted healed cystotomy incisions, no intraabdominal adhesions, and no adhesions at the site. Conclusion: Our new technique for endoscopic cystotomy overcomes previously reported risks for bowel injuries. Using this route gives good spatial orientation and access to all quadrants, including the pelvis. Biopsies with good hemostasis can be easily achieved. Lack of intraperitoneal changes postoperatively indicate that this procedure may be safe for humans. © 2012 by JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Singh Bhullar, J., Subhas, G., Gupta, A., Jacobs, M. J., Decker, M., Silberberg, B., & Mittal, V. K. (2012). Transvesical NOTES: Survival study in porcine model. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 16(4), 606–611. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680812x13517013317950

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free