Comparison in efficacy between pure NOTES peritoneoscopy with small or large endoscope and laparoscopy.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and systematic impact of different sized endoscopes for pure transgastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) peritoneoscopy relative to laparoscopy. MethodsA total of 15 dogs were randomly assigned to the small-sized endoscope (SS), large-sized endoscope (LS) and standard laparoscopy (SL) groups. The procedure time, visualization scores for abdominal organs, gastric incision healing times and procedure-associated complications were recorded. Blood samples were collected at 1h preoperation and at 1h, 12h, 2 days and 7 days postoperation. Serum tumor necrosis factor (TNF)- and interleukin (IL)-6 levels as well as peripheral white blood cell (WBC) counts were analyzed. ResultsPeritoneoscopy was successfully performed with both pure transgastric NOTES and laparoscopy. The peritoneoscopy required less time to complete in the SL group (44.07.0min) than the LS (83.0 +/- 28.9min) and SS (106.6 +/- 81.3min) groups (P<0.01), but no statistical difference was observed between the SS and LS groups (P>0.05). The visualization scores of peritoneal organs among the three groups did not differ significantly (P>0.05). The gastric incision exhibited satisfactory healing in both the SS and LS groups. Moreover, serum TNF- and IL-6 levels and WBC counts at each time point were similar among the three groups (P>0.05). ConclusionsSmall-sized endoscope is not superior to a large-sized one for pure transgastric NOTES peritoneoscopy. Pure transgastric NOTES is not less invasive or less time-consuming than laparoscopy.