metricas
covid
Buscar en
Cirugía Española (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Cirugía Española (English Edition) Non-randomised, comparative, prospective study of transvaginal endoscopic cholec...
Journal Information
Vol. 85. Issue 5.
Pages 287-291 (May 2009)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 85. Issue 5.
Pages 287-291 (May 2009)
Original article
Full text access
Non-randomised, comparative, prospective study of transvaginal endoscopic cholecystectomy versus transparietal laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Estudio comparativo, prospectivo y no aleatorizado de la colecistectomía endoscópica transvaginal frente a la colecistectomía laparoscópica transparietal
Visits
1424
José F. Nogueraa,
Corresponding author
jnoguera@hsll.es

Author for correspondence.
, Ángel Cuadradoa, Carlos Dolzb, José M. Oleaa, Rafael Moralesa, Carlos Vicensa, Juan J. Pujola
a Servicio de Cirugía General, Hospital Son Llàtzer, Palma de Mallorca, Baleares, Spain
b Servicio de Aparato Digestivo, Hospital Son Llàtzer, Palma de Mallorca, Baleares, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Abstract
Introduction

We present a non-randomised comparative study of 2 patients series followed up prospectively, in which convention laparoscopic cholecystectomy is compared with transvaginal cholecystectomy, a hybrid transluminal endoscopic procedure, with the objective of assessing the clinical safety of the procedures and its efficacy in the resolution of cholelithiasis.

Patients and method

A non-randomised prospective clinical series of 40 female patients, operated on for cholelithiasis using endoscopic surgery, 20 with a conventional laparoscopic approach and 20 using a transvaginal endoscopic approach. Surgical wound infection, urinary infection, evisceration, eventration, mortality, and other complications.

Results

Scheduled operations were performed on the 40 patients as indicated. There were no complications during the operations. There was no mortality associated with the procedures and there was only 1 post-surgical complication, a urinary tract infection in 1 patient operated on by the transvaginal approach. The mean follow up was the same in both groups (9 months). The mean hospital stay was less than 0.8 days in both groups. The duration of the surgery was longer in the transvaginal approach group, with a mean of 69.5min, compared to 46.2min in the laparoscopy group.

Conclusions

Although the cosmetic benefit is obvious, no differences were found as regards parietal problems in this series. The duration of the transvaginal surgery is higher than that of the transparietal, but the times of both are acceptable. In this study, the non-inferiority in the safety and efficacy of the transvaginal approach is able to be assessed.

Keywords:
Transvaginal cholecystectomy
NOTES
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Resumen
Introducción

Presentamos un estudio comparativo no aleatorizado de 2 series seguidas de manera prospectiva en las que se compara la colecistectomía laparoscópica convencional con la colecistectomía transvaginal, procedimiento endoscópico transluminal híbrido, con el objetivo de valorar la seguridad clínica del procedimiento y su eficacia en la resolución de la colelitiasis.

Pacientes y método

Serie clínica prospectiva no aleatorizada de 40 mujeres intervenidas por colelitiasis mediante cirugía endoscópica, 20 con abordaje laparoscópico convencional y 20 mediante abordaje endoscópico transvaginal. Se analizaron como variables la infección de herida quirúrgica, la infección urinaria, la evisceración, la eventración, la mortalidad y otras complicaciones.

Resultados

Se realizó la intervención prevista en las 40 pacientes a quienes se indicó. No hubo complicaciones intraoperatorias. No hubo ningún caso de mortalidad relacionada con los procedimientos y sólo se produjo una complicación postoperatoria, infección del tracto urinario, en una paciente operada por vía transvaginal. El seguimiento medio ha sido el mismo en ambos grupos (9 meses). La estancia media fue en ambos grupos < 0,8 días. La duración de la cirugía fue mayor en el grupo con abordaje transvaginal, con 69,5min de media frente a 46,2min en el grupo laparoscópico.

Conclusiones

Si bien la ventaja estética es patente, en esta serie no se han encontrado diferencias en relación con problemas parietales. La duración de la cirugía transvaginal es mayor que la de la transparietal, pero los tiempos medios de ambas son aceptables. En este estudio se puede valorar la no inferioridad en eficacia y seguridad del abordaje transvaginal.

Palabras clave:
Colecistectomía transvaginal
NOTES
Colecistectomía laparoscópica
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
R. Zorrón, M. Filgueiras, L. Maggioni, et al.
NOTES. Transvaginal cholecystectomy: report of the first case.
Surg Innov, 14 (2007), pp. 279-283
[2.]
R. Zorrón, L. Maggioni, L. Pombo, et al.
NOTES transvaginal cholecystectomy: preliminary clinical application.
Surg Endosc, 22 (2008), pp. 542-547
[3.]
M. Bessler, P. Stevens, L. Milone, et al.
Transvaginal laparoscopically assisted endoscopic cholecystectomy: a hybrid approach to natural orifice surgery.
Gastrointest Endosc, 66 (2007), pp. 1243-1245
[4.]
J. Marescaux, B. Dallemagne, S. Perretta, et al.
Surgery without scars: report of transluminal cholecystectomy in a human being.
Arch Surg, 142 (2007), pp. 823-826
[5.]
A. Branco Filho, R. Noda, W. Kondo, et al.
Initial experience with hybrid transvaginal cholecystectomy.
Gastrointest Endosc, 66 (2007), pp. 1245-1248
[6.]
A. Branco, A. Filho, W. Kondo, et al.
Hybrid transvaginal nephrectomy.
Eur Urol, 53 (2008), pp. 1290-1294
[7.]
C. Dolz, J.F. Noguera, A. Martín, et al.
Colecistectomía transvaginal (NOTES) combinada con minilaparoscopia.
Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 99 (2007), pp. 698-702
[8.]
J.F. Noguera, C. Dolz, A. Cuadrado, et al.
Hybrid transvaginal cholecystectomy NOTES, and minilaparoscopy: analysis of a prospective clinical series.
[9.]
K. Ikeda, A. Fritscher-Ravens, C.A. Mosse, et al.
Endoscopic fullthickness resection with sutured closure in a porcine model.
Gastrointest Endosc, 62 (2005), pp. 122-129
[10.]
B. Hu, S. Chung, L. Sun, I.I. Eagle Claw, et al.
A novel endosuture device that uses a curved needle for major arterial bleeding: a bench study.
Gastrointest Endosc, 62 (2005), pp. 266-270
[11.]
G. Kaehler, R. Grobholz, C. Langner, et al.
A new technique of endoscopic full-thickness resection using a flexible stapler.
Endoscopy, 38 (2006), pp. 86-89
[12.]
G.S. Raju, G. Shibukawa, I. Ahmed, et al.
Endoluminal suturing may overcome the limitations of clip closure of a gaping wide colon perforation.
Gastrointest Endosc, 65 (2007), pp. 906-911
[13.]
F. Ghezzi, L. Raio, M. Mueller, et al.
Vaginal extraction of pelvic masses following operative laparoscopy.
Surg Endosc, 16 (2002), pp. 1691-1696
[14.]
I. Gill, E. Cherullo, A. Meraney, et al.
Vaginal extraction of the intact specimen following laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.
J Urol, 167 (2002), pp. 238-241
[15.]
V. Neri, A. Fersini, A. Ambrosi, et al.
Umbilical port-site complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: role of topical antibiotic therapy.
JSLS, 12 (2008), pp. 126-132
[16.]
A. Nassar, K. Ashkar, A. Rashed, et al.
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the umbilicus.
Br J Surg, 84 (1997), pp. 630-633
[17.]
H. Tonouchi, Y. Ohmori, M. Kobayashi, et al.
Trocar site hernia.
Arch Surg, 139 (2004), pp. 128-156
[18.]
C.Y. Peterson, S. Ramamoorthy, B. Andrews, et al.
Women's positive perception of transvaginal NOTES surgery.
[19.]
S. Shih, S. Kantsevoy, A. Kalloo, et al.
Hybrid minimally invasive surgery—a bridge between laparoscopic and translumenal surgery.
Surg Endosc, 21 (2007), pp. 1450-1453
Copyright © 2009. Asociación Española de Cirujanos
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos