Vol. 143 No. 4950 (2013)
Perception of preference and risk-taking in laparoscopy, transgastric, and rigid-hybrid transvaginal NOTES for cholecystectomy
- Michael Christian Sulz
- Andreas Zerz
- Markus Sagmeister
- Thomas Roll
- Christa Meyenberger
QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY:Few data are available regarding patients’ perceptions of new cholecystectomy (CC) techniques, in the context of the patients’ risk behaviours. We investigated patients’ preferences for transgastric pure natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES; transgastric NCC) and rigid-hybrid transvaginal NOTES CC (tvNCC) compared with the standard laparoscopic CC (SL-CC), and patients’ risk behaviours.
METHODS:A total of140 inpatients scheduled for elective laparoscopic CC were enrolled in this prospective single-centre study, from January 2009 to January 2010. Patients judged the potential advantages and disadvantages of transgastric NCC and tvNCC compared with SL-CC. The individual’s risk behaviour was analysed by means of the validated 40-item Domain-Specific Risk Attitude Scale (DOSPERT).
RESULTS:Of the 140 recruited patients, 57 (65% females; mean age 51.5 years) were analysed. Twenty-five percent of males opted for transgastric NCC and 75% opted for SL-CC. Among females, 10.8%, 37.8% and 51.4% opted for transgastric NCC, tvNCC and SL-CC, respectively. Faster convalescence was graded as the primary potential advantage of transgastric NCC, whereas the potential risk of long-term stomach injuries was considered a primary disadvantage. Females graded the reduction of hospital-acquired morbidity as the primary advantage of tvNCC. The risk assessment showed significantly more risk-taking behaviour in the recreational domain of life among patients who opted for innovative surgical techniques than among those opting for conventional surgery.
CONCLUSIONS:Transgastric NCC is rarely accepted by females but accepted by a quarter of males. Females consider rigid-hybrid tvNCC and SL-CC similarly attractive. Despite promising new techniques, three-quarters of male and one half of female patients still prefer the standard laparoscopic CC.
- Reynolds W Jr. The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2001;1:89–94.
- Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Hill SL, Vaughn CA, et al. Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:114–7.
- Pai RD, Fong DG, Bundga ME, Odze RD, Rattner DW, Thompson CC. Transcolonic endoscopic cholecystectomy: a NOTES survival study in a porcine model (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:428–34.
- Jagannath SB, Kantsevoy SV, Vaughn CA, Chung SSC, Cotton PB, Gostout CJ, et al. Peroral transgastric enscopic ligation of fallopian tubes with long-term survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:449–53.
- Park PO, Bergström M, Ikeda K, Fritscher-Ravens A, Swain P. Experimental studies of transgastric gallbladder surgery: cholecystectomy and cholecystogastric anastomosis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:601–6.
- Kantsevoy SV, Jagannath SB, Nijyama H, Vaughn CA, Chung SSC, Cotton PB, et al. Endoscopic gastrojejunostomy with survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:287–92.
- Kantsevoy SV, Hu B, Jagannath SB, Vaughn CA, Beitler DM, Chung SS, et al. Transgastric endoscopic splenectomy: is it possible? Surg Endosc. 2006;20:522–5.
- Wagh MS, Merrifield BF, Thompson CC. Survival studies after endoscopic transgastric oophorectomy and tubectomy in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:473–8.
- Marescaux J, Dallemagne B, Perretta S, Wattiez A, Mutter D, Coumaros D. Surgery without scars: report of transluminal cholecystectomy in a human being. Arch Surg. 2007;142:823–6.
- Zorrón R, Maggioni LC, Pombo L, Oliveira AL, Carvhalo GL, Filgueiras M. NOTES transvaginal cholecystectomy: preliminary clinical application. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:542–7.
- Zornig C, Mofid H, Emmermann A, Alm M, von Waldenfels HA, Felixmuller C. Scarless cholecystectomy with combined transvaginal and transumbilical approach in a series of 20 patients. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1427–9.
- Burghardt J, Federlein M, Elling D, Gellert K, Borchert D. Transvaginale Cholezystektomie – die Etablierung und Nutzung eines neuen Zugangs zur Bauchhöhle für die Viszeralchirurgie. CHAZ. 2008;923–6.
- Linke GR, Tarantino I, Hoetzel R, Warschkow R, Lange J, Lachat R, et al. Rigid-hybrid transvaginal NOTES cholecystectomy: evaluation in routine clinical practise. Endoscopy. 2010;42:571–5.
- Arezzo A, Zornig C, Mofid H, Fuchs KH, Breithaupt W, Noguera J, et al. The EURO-NOTES clinical registry for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a 2-year activity report. Surg Endosc. 2013; Mar 22. [Epub ahead of print]
- Demetrios NM, Konstantinos JB, Eleftherios IM, Efstathios LP, Athanasios SP, Alexandros EP. Surgery via natural orifices in human beings: yesterday, today, tomorrow. Am J Surg. 2012;204:93–102.
- Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Drelichman ER. Patient perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery as a technique for cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:854–60.
- Peterson CY, Ramamoorthy S, Andrews B, Horgan S, Talamini M, Chock A. Women’s positive perception of transvaginal NOTES surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1770–4.
- Hagen ME, Wagner OJ, Christen D, Morel P. Cosmetic issues of abdominal surgery: results of an enquiry into possible grounds for a natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) approach. Endoscopy. 2008;40:581–3.
- Strickland AD, Norwood MG, Behnia-Willison F, Olakkengil SA, Hewett PJ. Transvaginal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a survey of women’s views on a new technique. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2424–31.
- Swanstrom LL, Volckmann E, Hungness E, Soper NJ. Patient attitudes and expectations regarding natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1519–25.
- Johnson JG, Wilke A, Weber EU. Beyond a trait view of risk-taking: a domain-specific scale measuring risk perceptions, expected benefits, and perceived-risk attitude in German-speaking populations. Polish Psychological Bulletin. 2004;35:153–63.
- Weber EU, Blais A-R, Betz NE. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviours. J Behav Dec Making. 2002;15:263–90.
- Rao A, Kynaston J, MacDonald ER, Ahmed I. Patient preferences for surgical techniques: should we invest in new approaches? Surg Endosc. 2010;24:3016–25.
- Bucher P, Ostermann S, Pugin F, Morel P. Female population perception of conventional laparoscopy, transumbilical LESS, and transvaginal NOTES for cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:2308–15.
- Linke GR, Luz S, Janczak J, Zerz A, Schmied BM, Siercks I, et al. Evaluation of sexual function in sexually active women 1 year after transvaginal NOTES: a prospective cohort study of 106 patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2013;398:139–45.
- Nau P, Ellison EC, Muscarella P Jr, Mikami D, Narula VK, Needleman B, et al. A review of 130 humans enrolled in transgastric NOTES protocols at a single institution. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1004–11.
- Hazey JW, Narula VK, Renton DB, Reavis KM, Paul CM, Hinshaw KE, et al. Natural-orifice transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy in humans: initial clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:16–20.
- Nau P, Anderson J, Yuh B, Muscarella P Jr, Ellison EC, Happel L, et al. Diagnostic transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy: extension of the initial human trial for staging of pancreatic head masses. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1440–6.
- Nau P, Anderson J, Needleman B, Ellison EC, Melvin WS, Hazey JW. Endoscopic peritoneal access and insufflation: natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:485–9.
- Nau P, Anderson J, Happel L, Yuh B, Narula VK, Needleman B, et al. Safe alternative transgastric peritoneal access in humans: NOTES. Surgery. 2011;149:147–52.
- Blais AR, Weber EU. A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgm Decis Mak. 2006;1:33–47.
- Harrison JD, Young JM, Butow P, Salkeld G, Solomon MJ. Is it worth the risk? A systematic review of instruments that measure risk propensity for use in the health setting. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:1385–96.