4.6 Article

Hybrid transvaginal cholecystectomy, NOTES, and minilaparoscopy: analysis of a prospective clinical series

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-0288-z

关键词

NOTES; Transvaginal cholecystectomy; Transluminal endoscopic surgery; Laparoscopy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) makes it possible to perform intraperitoneal surgical procedures with a minimal number of access points in the abdominal wall. It is not yet possible to perform these interventions without the help of abdominal wall entryways, so these procedures are hybrids, a fusion of minilaparoscopy and transluminal endoscopic surgery. In this paper we present a prospective clinical series of 15 patients who underwent transvaginal hybrid cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis. This was a prospective clinical series of 15 consecutive female patients, nonrandomly chosen and without a control group, who underwent a fusion transvaginal NOTES and minilaparoscopy procedure with two entryways for cholelithiasis. One was umbilical and measured 5 mm in diameter, and the other was in the right upper quadrant and measured 3 mm in diameter. The scheduled surgical intervention was performed on the 15 patients in whom it had been indicated. There were no intraoperative complications. One patient had mild hematuria that resolved in less than 12 h; there were no other complications after average follow-up of 124 days. Nine patients were discharged in 24 h, and two were discharged less than 12 h after the procedure. Hybrid transvaginal cholecystectomy is a good surgical model for minimally invasive surgery, a combination of NOTES and minilaparoscopy. It can be performed in surgical settings where laparoscopy is practised regularly, using the instruments normally used for endoscopy and laparoscopic surgery. Owing to the reproducibility of the intervention and the ease of vaginal closure, hybrid transvaginal cholecystectomy will permit further development of NOTES in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据