Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 930–934 | Cite as

“No scar” small bowel resection in a survival porcine model using transcolonic NOTES® and transabdominal approach

  • Elena DubcencoEmail author
  • Teodor Grantcharov
  • Frank C. S. Eng
  • Catherine J. Streutker
  • Nancy N. Baxter
  • Ori D. Rotstein
  • Jeffrey P. Baker
Dynamic Manuscript

Abstract

Background

Fundamental techniques and essential tools for performing “no scar” surgery still need to be developed. Our study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of performing small bowel resection by transcolonic NOTES® and transabdominal approach using rigid laparoscopic and flexible endoscopic instruments.

Methods

One non survival and four survival experiments were performed using a porcine model. The endoscope with an overtube was advanced into the peritoneal cavity through the colotomy. Mini-laparoscopic instruments were placed through the abdominal wall under the endoscopic observation. The endoscope was replaced with a rigid linear stapler. The small bowel was identified. The segment of the small bowel was resected by firing the endo stapler, and extracted through the colon. The two limbs of the small bowel were approximated with two stay-sutures. An enterotomy was then created on the antimesenteric sides of each line. A side-to-side anastomosis was performed with another application of the endo stapler. The stapler was withdrawn. The enterotomy was closed by suturing. The colotomy was closed with endoclips and the endoscope was withdrawn. The mini-laparoscopic instruments were removed.

Results

Small bowel resection was successfully performed in all animals. The surgery time was 70 minutes. There was no mortality or complications. The animals recovered uneventfully, and survived the 2 weeks postprocedure period. They remained healthy, and gained weight. Necropsy was performed 2 weeks after the surgery. On necropsy, evaluation of the abdominal skin revealed no scars. The peritoneal cavity was examined. No signs of infection, bleeding, perforations, and adhesions were noted. Endoscopic examination of the colotomy and anastomosis revealed complete healing that was confirmed by histopathology.

Conclusions

The study has demonstrated the feasibility of small bowel resection using transcolonic NOTES® and transabdominal approach. Simultaneous use of flexible endoscopic and rigid laparoscopic instruments in NOTES® is not only feasible but has significant advantages and greatly facilitates the performance of the operation, yet leaves no scars.

Keywords

Small Bowel Peritoneal Cavity Colonic Wall Small Bowel Resection Transabdominal Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Pentax Medical Co. for providing training and video recording equipment; Olympus Canada Inc., Karl Storz Endoscopy Canada Ltd., AMT Endoscopy and Covidien for providing the study with free of charge endoscopic and laparoscopic equipment.

Disclosures

Drs. Dubcenco, Eng, Streutker, Baxter, Rotstein, and Baker have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Dr. Grantcharov received research support grant from Covidien, Canada.

Supplementary material

Video Clip “NO SCAR small bowel resection”. The video demonstrates our step-by-step technique for small bowel resection using transcolonic NOTES® and transabdominal approach. (MPG 70592 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ryou M, Fong DG, Pai RD et al (2007) 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 39:881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Isariyawongse JP, McGee MF, Rosen MJ et al (2008) Pure natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) nephrectomy using standard laparoscopic instruments in the porcine model. J Endourol 22:1087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kantsevoy SV, Hu B, Jagannath SB et al (2006) Transgastric endoscopic splenectomy: is it possible? Surg Endosc 20:522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Merrifield BF, Wagh MS, Thompson CC (2006) Peroral transgastric organ resection: a feasibility study in pigs. Gastrointest Endosc 63:693–697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stark M, Benhidjeb T (2007) Transcolonic endoscopic cholecystectomy: a NOTES survival study in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 66:208–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pai RD, Fong DG, Bundga ME, Odze RD, Rattner DW, Thompson CC (2006) Transcolonic endoscopic cholecystectomy: a NOTES survival study in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 64(3):428–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hagen ME, Wagner OJ, Swain PC, Patel A, Inan I, Pugin F, Fasel J, Morel P (2009) Transrectal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for umbilical hernia repair in a human cadaver (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 69(6):e53–e54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Voermans RP, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bemelman WA, Fockens P (2009) Feasibility of transgastric and transcolonic natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery peritoneoscopy combined with intraperitoneal EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 69(7):e61–e67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubcenco E, Grantcharov T, Streutker CJ, Rotstein OD, Baxter NN, Jeejeebhoy KN, Baker JP (2008) The development of a novel intracolonic occlusion balloon for transcolonic natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: description of the technique and early experience in a porcine model (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 68(4):760–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    von Dellus S, Huber W, Feussner H, Wilhelm D, Karagianni A et al (2007) Effect of pneumoperitoneum on hemodynamics and inspiratory pressures during natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): an experimental, controlled study in an acute porcine model. Endoscopy 39:854–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jaggannath SB et al (2004) Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 60:114–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raju GS, Shibukawa G, Ahmed I et al (2007) Endoluminal suturing may overcome the limitations of clip closure of a gapping wide colon perforation (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 65:906–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilhelm D, Meining A, von Delius et al (2007) An innovative, safe and sterile sigmoid access (ISSA) for NOTES. Endoscopy 65:906–911Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kantsevoy SV, Hu B, Jagannath SB et al (2007) Technical feasibility of endoscopic gastric reduction: a pilot study in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 65:510–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raju GS, Ahmed I, Xiao SY et al (2006) Controlled trial of immediate endoluminal closure of colon perforations in a porcine model by use of a novel clip device. Gastrointest Endosc 64:989–997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fong DG, Pai RD, Thompson CC (2007) Transcolonic endoscopic abdominal exploration: a NOTES survival study in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 65:312–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Dubcenco
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  • Teodor Grantcharov
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
  • Frank C. S. Eng
    • 2
    • 5
  • Catherine J. Streutker
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Nancy N. Baxter
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
  • Ori D. Rotstein
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jeffrey P. Baker
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of GastroenterologySt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of SurgerySt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of HistopathologySt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge InstituteTorontoCanada
  5. 5.University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations