Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 3119–3133 | Cite as

Toward scar-free surgery: an analysis of the increasing complexity from laparoscopic surgery to NOTES

  • Amine Chellali
  • Steven D. Schwaitzberg
  • Daniel B. Jones
  • John Romanelli
  • Amie Miller
  • David Rattner
  • Kurt E. Roberts
  • Caroline G. L. Cao
Article

Abstract

Background

NOTES is an emerging technique for performing surgical procedures, such as cholecystectomy. Debate about its real benefit over the traditional laparoscopic technique is on-going. There have been several clinical studies comparing NOTES to conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, no work has been done to compare these techniques from a Human Factors perspective. This study presents a systematic analysis describing and comparing different existing NOTES methods to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

Videos of endoscopic/laparoscopic views from fifteen live cholecystectomies were analyzed to conduct a detailed task analysis of the NOTES technique. A hierarchical task analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and several hybrid transvaginal NOTES cholecystectomies was performed and validated by expert surgeons. To identify similarities and differences between these techniques, their hierarchical decomposition trees were compared. Finally, a timeline analysis was conducted to compare the steps and substeps.

Results

At least three variations of the NOTES technique were used for cholecystectomy. Differences between the observed techniques at the substep level of hierarchy and on the instruments being used were found. The timeline analysis showed an increase in time to perform some surgical steps and substeps in NOTES compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Conclusion

As pure NOTES is extremely difficult given the current state of development in instrumentation design, most surgeons utilize different hybrid methods—combination of endoscopic and laparoscopic instruments/optics. Results of our hierarchical task analysis yielded an identification of three different hybrid methods to perform cholecystectomy with significant variability among them. The varying degrees to which laparoscopic instruments are utilized to assist in NOTES methods appear to introduce different technical issues and additional tasks leading to an increase in the surgical time. The NOTES continuum of invasiveness is proposed here as a classification scheme for these methods, which was used to construct a clear roadmap for training and technology development.

Keywords

NOTES continuum Laparoscopic surgery Cholecystectomy Hierarchical task analysis Timeline analysis Cognitive task analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Auyang ED, Santos BF, Enter DH, Hungness ES, Soper NJ (2011) Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a technical review. Surg Endosc 25(10):3135–3148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Niu J, Song W, Yan M, Fan W, Niu W, Liu E, Peng C, Lin P, Li P, Khan AQ (2010) Transvaginal laparoscopically assisted endoscopic cholecystectomy: preliminary clinical results for a series of 43 cases in China. Surg Endosc 25(4):1281–1286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zorron R, Maggioni LC, Pombo L, Oliveira AL, Carvalho GL, Filgueiras M (2008) NOTES transvaginal cholecystectomy: preliminary clinical application. Surg Endosc 22(2):542–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zornig C, Mofid H, Emmermann A, Alm M, von Waldenfels HA, Felixmüller C (2008) Scarless cholecystectomy with combined transvaginal and transumbilical approach in a series of 20 patients. Surg Endosc 22(6):1427–1429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuadrado-Garcia A, Noguera JF, Olea-Martinez JM, Morales R, Dolz C, Lozano L, Vicens JC, Pujol JJ (2011) Hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective human series. Surg Endosc 25(1):19–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noguera JF, Cuadrado A, Dolz C, Olea JM, García JC (2012) Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hybrid natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 26(12):3435–3441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asakuma M, Perretta S, Allemann P, Cahil Rl, Con SA, Solano C, Pasupathy S, Mutter D, Dallemagne B, Marescaux J (2009) Challenges and lessons learned from NOTES cholecystectomy initial experience: a stepwise approach from the laboratory to clinical application. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:249–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vieira JP, Linhares MM, Caetano EMJ, Moura RM, Asseituno V, Fuzyi R, Girão MJ, Ruano JM, Goldenberg A, de Jesus GLF, Matos D (2012) Evaluation of the clinical and inflammatory responses in exclusively NOTES transvaginal cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic routes: an experimental study in swine. Surg Endosc 26(11):3232–3244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rattner D, Kalloo A (2006) ASGE/SAGES Working Group on natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 20(2):329–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Solomon D, Shariff AH, Silasi DA, Duffy AJ, Bell RL, Roberts KE (2012) Transvaginal cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 26(10):2823–2827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Palanivelu CPSR, Rangarajan M, Parthasarathi R, Senthilnathan P, Prasad M (2008) Transvaginal endoscopic appendectomy in humans: a unique approach to NOTES—world’s first report. Surg Endosc 22(5):1343–1347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobsen GR, Thompson K, Spivack LAF, Wong JCB, Bosia J, Whitcomb E, Lucas E, Talamini M, Horgan S (2010) Initial experience with transvaginal incisional hernia repair. Hernia 14(1):89–91PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones DB, Maithel SK, Schneider BE (2006) Atlas of minimally invasive surgery, 1st edn. Cine-Med Inc, WoodburyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Navez B. (2001) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Epublication: WeBSurg.com. http://www.websurg.com/ref/doi-ot02en012.htm. Accessed 12 Apr 2013
  15. 15.
    Strasberg SM, Brunt LM (2010) Rationale and use of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 211(1):132–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bingener J, Gostout CJ (2012) Update on natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Gastroenterol Hepatol 8(6):384–389Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sankaranarayanan G, Matthes K, Nemani A, Ahn W, Kato M, Jones DB, Schwaitzberg S, De S (2013) Needs analysis for developing a virtual-reality NOTES simulator. Surg Endosc 27(5):1607–1616PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zornig C, Siemssen L, Emmermann A, Alm M, von Waldenfels HA, Felixmüller C, Mofid H (2011) NOTES cholecystectomy: matched-pair analysis comparing the transvaginal hybrid and conventional laparoscopic techniques in a series of 216 patients. Surg Endosc 25(6):1822–1826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Santos BF, Teitelbaum EN, Arafat FO, Milad MP, Soper NJ, Hungness ES (2012) Comparison of short-term outcomes between transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 26(11):3058–3066PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kondo W, Wood Branco A, Branco Filho AJ, Noda RW, Tessmann Zomer M, Charles L, Bourdel N (2011) Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (Notes): Surgical Technique and Results. In: Darwish A (ed) Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy, http://www.intechopen.com/books/advanced-gynecologic-endoscopy/transvaginal-natural-orifice-transluminal-endoscopic-surgery-notes-surgical-technique-and-results. Accessed 12 Apr 2013
  21. 21.
    Bucher P, Pugin F, Ostermann S, Ris F, Chilcott M, Morel P (2011) Population perception of surgical safety and body image trauma: a plea for scarless surgery? Surg Endosc 25:408–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tessier C, Zhang L, Cao CGL (2012) Ergonomic considerations in natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): A case study. Work. A J Prev Assess Rehabil 41:4683–4688Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shackel B (1991) Usability—context; framework; definition; design and evaluation, human factors for informatics usability. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 21–37Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cuschieri A (2000) Human reliability assessment in surgery—a new approach for improving surgical performance and clinical outcome. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82:83–87PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    MacKenzie CL, Ibbotson JA, Cao CGL, Lomax AJ (2000) Hierarchical decomposition of goal-directed activity: a valuable research and investigative tool for minimally invasive surgery. In:Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Singapore, pp 409Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    MacKenzie CL, Cao CGL, Ibbotson JA, Lomax AJ (2001) Hierarchical decomposition of laparoscopic surgery: A human factors approach to investigating the operating room environment. J Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 10(3):121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cao CGL, MacKenzie CL, Ibbotson JA, Turner LJ, Blair NP, Nagy AG (1999) Hierarchical decomposition of laparoscopic procedures. Stud health technol inform 62:83–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chellali A, Cao CGL (2013) The impact of new instruments on surgical performance in natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. The proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting HFES 2013. San Diego, CA, pp 663–667Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clark RE, Feldon D, Van Merrienboer JJG, Yates K, Early S (2008) Cognitive task analysis. In: Spector JM, Merrill MD, van Merrienboer JJG, Driscoll MP (eds) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 3rd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shih SP, Kantsevoy SV, Kalloo AN, Magno P, Giday SA, Ko CW, Isakovich NV, Meireles O, Hanly EJ, Marohn MR (2007) Hybrid minimally invasive surgery—a bridge between laparoscopic and translumenal surgery. Surg Endosc 21(8):1450–1453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schlager A, Khalaileh A, Shussman N et al (2010) Providing more through less: current methods of retraction in SIMIS and NOTES cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 27(4):1542–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Hill SL, Vaughn CA, Magee CA, Kantsevoy SV (2004) Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 60:114–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Satgunam S, Miedema B, Whang S, Thaler K (2012) Transvaginal cholecystectomy without laparoscopic support using prototype flexible endoscopic instruments in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 26:2331–2338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Whang SH, Satgunam S, Miedema BW, Thaler K (2010) Transvaginal cholecystectomy by using a prototype flexible clip applier. J Gastrointest Endo 72(2):351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amine Chellali
    • 1
    • 2
  • Steven D. Schwaitzberg
    • 1
  • Daniel B. Jones
    • 3
  • John Romanelli
    • 4
  • Amie Miller
    • 5
  • David Rattner
    • 6
  • Kurt E. Roberts
    • 7
  • Caroline G. L. Cao
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryCambridge Health Alliance, Harvard Medical SchoolCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer EngineeringUniversity of EvryEvryFrance
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Surgery, Baystate Medical CenterTufts University School of MedicineSpringfieldUSA
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryWright State UniversityDaytonUSA
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  7. 7.Department of SurgeryYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  8. 8.Department of Biomedical, Industrial and Human Factors EngineeringWright State UniversityDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations