Suppr超能文献

在尸体阑尾切除术模型中开发可行的经直肠自然腔道内镜手术(NOTES®)方法:前位更佳。

Development of a feasible transrectal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES®) approach in a cadaveric appendectomy model: anterior is better.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 North Saint Clair Street, Suite 650, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2011 Dec;25(12):3773-83. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1787-x. Epub 2011 Jun 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The transrectal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) approach is a potentially promising alternative to transgastric or transvaginal approaches for intraperitoneal procedures. However, whether the optimal transrectal approach for intraperitoneal surgery is anterior or posterior remains unknown. To evaluate this, a prospective comparison of anterior and posterior transrectal NOTES approaches in a cadaveric appendectomy model was performed.

METHODS

Operations were performed on human cadavers using a transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) scope to assist with access and closure. Posterior access was achieved by tunneling cephalad through the retrorectal space into the peritoneal cavity. Anterior transrectal access was established through the rectal wall just above the peritoneal reflection. A dual-channel flexible endoscope was used to perform appendectomies. Rectotomies were closed using sutures or staples. Operative time, degree of laparoscopic assistance, complications, and leak-testing results were recorded.

RESULTS

This study investigated 10 cadavers with access and closure attempted using both anterior (n = 10) and posterior (n = 5) approaches, whereas appendectomies were performed using either an anterior (n = 8) or a posterior (n = 2) approach. The anterior approach required less time than the posterior approach for peritoneal access (4 ± 1 vs. 61 ± 14 min; p < 0.001), specimen extraction (2 ± 1 vs. 5 ± 1 min; p < 0.01), and the total operation (99 ± 35 vs. 176 ± 26 min; p = 0.02). A "pure" NOTES dissection was possible with the anterior approach using rigid transanal instruments for assistance. Dissection time, closure time, and the incidence of complications were similar between the two approaches. Leak testing of closures showed significant variability for all closure types.

CONCLUSION

Transrectal NOTES appendectomy is feasible in a cadaveric model using an anterior transrectal approach. This approach is technically easier, results in shorter operative times, and allows for a "pure" NOTES dissection compared with a posterior transrectal approach. Leak pressure testing of NOTES closures is unreliable in the cadaveric model.

摘要

背景

经直肠自然腔道内镜外科(NOTES)手术是一种有前途的替代经胃或经阴道入路进行腹腔内手术的方法。然而,对于腹腔内手术,最佳的经直肠入路是前入路还是后入路尚不清楚。为了评估这一点,我们在尸体阑尾切除术模型中进行了前入路和后入路经直肠NOTES 手术的前瞻性比较。

方法

使用经肛门内镜微创手术(TEM)镜协助进入和关闭,对人体尸体进行手术。后路通过经直肠向头侧隧道进入腹膜腔。前入路通过直肠壁上方的腹膜反射建立。使用双通道柔性内镜进行阑尾切除术。直肠切开采用缝合或吻合器关闭。记录手术时间、腹腔镜辅助程度、并发症和漏诊试验结果。

结果

本研究共对 10 具尸体进行了研究,尝试使用前入路(n=10)和后入路(n=5)进行入路和关闭,而阑尾切除术则分别采用前入路(n=8)或后入路(n=2)进行。前入路的腹膜进入时间(4±1 比 61±14 分钟;p<0.001)、标本取出时间(2±1 比 5±1 分钟;p<0.01)和总手术时间(99±35 比 176±26 分钟;p=0.02)均短于后入路。使用刚性经肛门器械进行辅助,前入路可以进行“纯”NOTES 解剖。两种方法的解剖时间、关闭时间和并发症发生率相似。所有类型的闭合漏诊试验均显示出显著的变异性。

结论

在尸体模型中,使用前入路经直肠NOTES 阑尾切除术是可行的。与后入路经直肠NOTES 手术相比,该方法技术上更简单,手术时间更短,并且可以进行“纯”NOTES 解剖。在尸体模型中,NOTES 闭合的漏诊压力测试不可靠。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验