Comparative study of NOTES alone vs. EUS-guided NOTES procedures

Background and study aims: Natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is in the developmental stage for various indications, but several obstacles remain to be overcome before NOTES procedures can come into routine clinical use. Of these obstacles, (1) transluminal injury due to exclusive use of endoluminal endoscopy to create the incision and (2) lack of orientation might be prevented by employing endoscopic ultrasound guidance. In this comparative study we assessed the role of endoscopic ultrasound guidance in various NOTES procedures.

Methods: Three transesophageal (mediastinoscopy/thoracoscopy) or transgastric procedures (gastrojejunostomy, adrenal gland removal) were performed in pigs using NOTES alone or with endoscopic ultrasound guidance (EUS). In NOTES alone the study end point was three major complications, at which point EUS guidance was added for the same procedures up to the same number of cases. The primary outcome was the rate of major complications; secondary outcome parameters were all complications and technical success.

Results: Forty-six pigs were included. Three major complications occurred in the first 24 NOTES-alone procedures: these were bleeding and organ injury, all during mediastinoscopy/thoracoscopy procedures. Adrenal gland removal failed in all procedures in which it was attempted, while gastrojejunostomy (n = 6) was performed successfully and without complications. In the next 22 animals EUS guidance enabled safe mediastinal access (n = 10) and adrenal gland removal (n = 6). For gastrojejunostomy, EUS guidance offered no additional benefit.

Conclusions: EUS guidance appears to be helpful in gaining access or identifying structures in anatomically difficult areas in NOTES procedures.

References

• 1 Kalloo A N, Singh V K, Jagannath S B. et al . Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 114-117
• 2 Kantsevoy S V, Jagannath S B, Niiyama H. et al . Endoscopic gastrojejunostomy with survival in a porcine model.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  62 287-292
• 3 Fritscher-Ravens A, Mosse C A, Mukherjee D. et al . Transluminal endosurgery: single lumen access anastomotic device for flexible endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  58 585-591
• 4 Zorron R, Maggioni L C, Pombo L. et al . NOTES transvaginal cholecystectomy: preliminary clinical application.  Surg Endosc. 2008;  22 542-547
• 5 Marescaux J, Dallemagne B, Perretta S. et al . Surgery without scars: report of transluminal cholecystectomy in a human being.  Arch Surg. 2007;  142 823-826
• 6 Hazey J W, Narula V K, Renton D B. et al . Natural-orifice transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy in humans: initial clinical trial.  Surg Endosc. 2008;  22 16-20
• 7 Mintz , Y , Horgan S, Cullen J. et al . NOTES: the hybrid technique.  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2007;  17 402-406
• 8 Kahaleh M, Shami V M, Conaway M R. et al . Endoscopic ultrasound drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst: a prospective comparison with conventional endoscopic drainage.  Endoscopy. 2006;  38 355-359
• 9 Voermans R P, Eisendraht P, Bruno M J. et al . Initial evaluation of a novel prototype forward-viewing US endoscope in transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;  66 1013-1017
• 10 Seifert H, Wehrmann T, Schmitt T. et al . Retroperitoneal endoscopic debridement for infected peripancreatic necrosis.  Lancet. 2000;  356 653-655
• 11 Will U, Wegener C, Graf K I. et al . Differential treatment and early outcome in the interventional endoscopic management of pancreatic pseudocysts in 27 patients.  World J Gastroenterol. 2006;  12 4175-4178
• 12 Levy M J, Wong K ee, Kendrick M L. et al . EUS-guided coil embolization for refractory ectopic variceal bleeding.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;  67 572-574
• 13 Romero-Castro R, Pellicer-Bautista F J, Jimenez-Saenz M. et al . EUS-guided injection of cyanoacrylate in perforating feeding veins in gastric varices: results in 5 cases.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;  66 402-407
• 14 Carrara S, Arcidiacono P G, Albarello L. et al . Endoscopic ultrasound-guided application of a new hybrid cryotherm probe in porcine pancreas: a preliminary study.  Endoscopy. 2008;  40 321-326
• 15 Fritscher-Ravens A, Mosse C A, Mills T N. et al . A through the scope device for suturing and tissue approximation under endoscopic ultrasound control.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 737-742
• 16 Raju G, Fritscher-Ravens A, Rothstein R. et al . Endoscopic closure of colon perforation compared to surgery in a porcine model a randomized controlled trial.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;  68 (2) 324-332
• 17 Fritscher-Ravens A, Mosse C A, Ikeda K, Swain P. Endoscopic transgastric lymphadenectomy using endoscopic ultrasound for selection and guidance.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 302-306
• 18 Fritscher-Ravens A, Patel K, Ghanbari A. et al . Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in the mediastinum: long-term survival animal experiments in transesophageal access, including minor surgical procerures.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 870-875
• 19 Bergström M, Ikeda K, Swain P, Park P O. Transgastric anastomosis by using flexible endoscopy in a porcine model.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 307-312
• 20 Pearl J P, Ponsky J L. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: a critical review.  J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;  12 1293-1300
• 21 Fritscher-Ravens A. Transgastric endoscopy – a new fashion, a new excitement!.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 161-167
• 22 Ryou M, Fong D G, Pai R D. et al . Dual-port distal pancreatectomy using a prototype endoscope and endoscopic stapler: a natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) survival study in a porcine model.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 881-887
• 23 Whiteford M H, Swanstrom L L. Emerging technologies including robotics and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) colorectal surgery.  J Surg Oncol. 2007;  96 678-683
• 24 Bowman D E. ASGE/SAGES Working Group on Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery. 199-203
• 25 Rösch T. Who votes for NOTES?.  Gut. 2008;  57 1481-1186