| ORIGINAL ARTICLE
|Year : 2018 | Volume
| Issue : 4 | Page : 316-320
Intraoperative cardiovascular response of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoscopy: A comparative animal study
Stefan Patrascu1, Catalin Andu Copaescu2, Valeriu Surlin1, Sandu Ramboiu1, Alice Nicoleta Dragoescu3, Sorin Stanilescu4, Dan Cristian4, Bogdan Silviu Ungureanu5, Daniela Elena Burtea5, Ana Maria Patrascu6, Florin Turcu2, Adrian Saftoiu5
1 Department of Surgery, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Craiova, Romania
2 Center of Excellence in Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery, Regina Maria Ponderas Academic Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
3 Department of Anesthesiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Craiova, Romania
4 Department of Surgery, Coltea Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
5 Department of Research Center in Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Craiova, Romania
6 Department of Hematology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Craiova, Romania
Background: Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) emerged as a new alternative method in minimally invasive techniques. Although a very small number of studies have compared the physiologic response in NOTES to laparoscopy, the results remain controversial.
Aim: This experimental animal study aims to evaluate the intraoperative cardiovascular and respiratory effects of pure transluminal natural orifice surgery and conventional laparoscopy.
Materials and Methods: Twenty female pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) equally divided into two study groups were assigned to either pure natural orifice transluminal endoscopic techniques (Group 1) or conventional laparoscopic surgery (Group 2) and monitored intraoperatively in terms of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and O2saturation (SpO2) for 1 h. Both groups underwent simple surgical procedures such as gastrojejunostomy, oophorectomy and adnexectomy.
Results: All procedures were successfully completed. The findings indicated statistically significant differences between SBP (P = 0.0065) and SpO2(P = 0.027) in the two groups at the beginning of the interventions. HR showed significant differences during the last 20 min of the interventions (min 40 and 45; P < 0.001). For the whole procedure (from the beginning of the intervention to 60 min interval), HR, SBP and SpO2values showed no statistical difference.
Conclusions: Although significant differences in terms of HR, mean blood pressure and SpO2were noted at specific intervals during surgery, no real variance of the cardiovascular parameters was observed when considering the entire procedure. Therefore, NOTES seems to be a safe approach with minimally intraoperative cardiovascular and respiratory implications.
Dr. Valeriu Surlin
Department of Surgery, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 1 Tabaci Street, Craiova 200642
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*