Comparison in efficacy between pure NOTES peritoneoscopy with small or large endoscope and laparoscopy

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and systematic impact of different sized endoscopes for pure transgastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) peritoneoscopy relative to laparoscopy.

Methods: A total of 15 dogs were randomly assigned to the small-sized endoscope (SS), large-sized endoscope (LS) and standard laparoscopy (SL) groups. The procedure time, visualization scores for abdominal organs, gastric incision healing times and procedure-associated complications were recorded. Blood samples were collected at 1 h preoperation and at 1 h, 12 h, 2 days and 7 days postoperation. Serum tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukin (IL)-6 levels as well as peripheral white blood cell (WBC) counts were analyzed.

Results: Peritoneoscopy was successfully performed with both pure transgastric NOTES and laparoscopy. The peritoneoscopy required less time to complete in the SL group (44.0 ± 7.0 min) than the LS (83.0 ± 28.9 min) and SS (106.6 ± 81.3 min) groups (P < 0.01), but no statistical difference was observed between the SS and LS groups (P > 0.05). The visualization scores of peritoneal organs among the three groups did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). The gastric incision exhibited satisfactory healing in both the SS and LS groups. Moreover, serum TNF-α and IL-6 levels and WBC counts at each time point were similar among the three groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: Small-sized endoscope is not superior to a large-sized one for pure transgastric NOTES peritoneoscopy. Pure transgastric NOTES is not less invasive or less time-consuming than laparoscopy.

Keywords: endoscopy; inflammatory response; laparoscopy; natural orifice endoscopic surgery.