Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 2505–2516 | Cite as

The NOVEL trial: natural orifice versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a prospective, randomized evaluation

  • Steven D. Schwaitzberg
  • Kurt Roberts
  • John R. Romanelli
  • David J. Desilets
  • David Earle
  • Santiago Horgan
  • Lee Swanstrom
  • Eric Hungness
  • Nathaniel Soper
  • Michael L. Kochman
  • on behalf of the Natural Orifice Surgery Consortium for Assessment and Research® (NOSCAR®) Clinical Trial Group
Article

Abstract

Introduction

The evolution of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery® (NOTES®) represents a case study in surgical procedural evolution. Beginning in 2004 with preclinical feasibility studies, and followed by the creation of the NOSCAR® collaboration between The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, procedural development followed a stepwise incremental pathway. The work of this consortium has included white paper analyses, obtaining outside independent funding for basic science and procedural development, and, ultimately, the initiation of a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing NOTES® cholecystectomy as an alternative procedure to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

Ninety patients were randomized into a randomized clinical trial with the primary objective of demonstrating non-inferiority of the transvaginal and transgastric arms to the laparoscopic arm. In the original trial design, there were both transgastric and transvaginal groups to be compared to the laparoscopic control group. However, after enrollment and randomization of 6 laparoscopic controls and 4 transgastric cases into the transgastric group, this arm was ultimately deemed not practical due to lagging enrollment, and the arm was closed. Three transgastric via the transgastric approach were performed in total with 9 laparoscopic control cases enrolled through the TG arm. Overall a total of 41 transvaginal and their 39 laparoscopic cholecystectomy controls were randomized into the study with 37 transvaginal and 33 laparoscopic cholecystectomies being ultimately performed. Overall total operating time was statistically longer in the NOTES® group: 96.9 (64.97) minutes versus 52.1 (19.91) minutes.

Results

There were no major adverse events such as common bile duct injury or return to the operating room for hemorrhage. Intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, and total medication given in the PACU were not statistically different. There were no conversions in the NOTES® group to a laparoscopic or open procedure, nor were there any injuries, bile leaks, hemorrhagic complications, wound infections, or wound dehiscence in either group. There were no readmissions. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores were 3.4 (CI 2.82) in the laparoscopic group and 2.9 (CI 1.96) in the transvaginal group (p = 0.41). The clinical assessment on cosmesis scores was not statistically different when recorded by clinical observers for most characteristics measured when the transvaginal group was compared to the laparoscopic group. Taken as a whole, the results slightly favor the transvaginal group. SF-12 scores were not statistically different at all postoperative time points except for the SF-12 mental component which was superior in the transvaginal group at all time points (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The safety profile for transvaginal cholecystectomy demonstrates that this approach is safe and produces at least non-inferior clinical results with superior cosmesis, with a transient reduction in discomfort. The transvaginal approach to cholecystectomy should no longer be considered experimental. As a model for intersociety collaboration, the study demonstrated the ultimate feasibility and success of partnership as a model for basic research, procedural development, fundraising, and clinical trial execution for novel interventional concepts, regardless of physician board certification.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special acknowledgement to Barbara Connell, CAE (ASGE) whose administrative expertise was crucial to the success of the study.

Funding

Funders (via unrestricted grants) of the NOSCAR® randomized prospective NOVEL Trial: NOTES versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (in alphabetical order): ASGE®, Covidien (now Medtronic), Ethicon Endosurgery Division of J&J, Karl Storz, Olympus, SAGES®, Stryker Endoscopy.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Steven D. Schwaitzberg, Kurt Roberts, John R. Romanelli, David J. Desilets, David Earle, Santiago Horgan, Lee Swanstrom, Eric Hungness, Nathaniel Soper, and Michael L. Kochman, on behalf of the Natural Orifice Surgery Consortium for Assessment and Research® (NOSCAR®) Clinical Trial Group, have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Rattner D (2006) Introduction to NOTES white paper. Surg Endosc 20(2):185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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(1):114–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reddy DN, Rao GV (2007) Transgastric approach to the peritoneal cavity: are we on the right track? Gastrointest Endosc 65(3):501–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jenkinson C, Layte R, Jenkinson D, Lawrence K, Petersen S, Paice C, Stradling J (1997) A shorter form health survey: can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies? J Public Health Med 19(2):179–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marinoff SC, Turner MLC (1992) Vulvar vestibulitis syndrome. Dermatol Clin 10:435–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlsson AM (1983) Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 16(1):87–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becker J, Schwartz C, Saris-Baglama RN, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB (2007) Using item response theory (IRT) for developing and evaluating the pain impact questionnaire (PIQ-6). Pain Med 8(3):S129–S144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwaitzberg SD, Hawes RH, Rattner DW, Kochman ML (2013) Novel challenges of multi-society investigator-initiated studies: a paradigm shift for technique and technology evaluation. Surg Endosc 27(8):2673–2677.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2504-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwaitzberg SD, Kochman ML, Hawes RH, Rattner DW (2009) Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): is it time for introduction to clinical practice? Surgery 146(5):841–842.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2009.06.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rattner DW, SAGES/ASGE Joint Committee on NOTES (2008) NOTES: where have we been and where are we going?. Surg Endosc 22(5):1143–1145.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9911-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rattner D, Hawes RH (2006) NOTES: gathering momentum. Gastrointest Endosc 63(6):838–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The Southern Surgeons Club, Moore MJ, Bennett CL (1995) The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 170(1):55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Single Port Laparoscopy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-port_laparoscopy. Accessed March 2012
  14. 14.
    Phillips MS, Marks JM, Roberts K, Tacchino R, Onders R, DeNoto G, Rivas H, Islam A, Soper N, Gecelter G, Rubach E, Paraskeva P, Shah S (2012) Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 26(5):1296–1303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Institute of Medicine Report, Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research June 30, 2009. National Academies Press. Appendix C Table 5–6. National Academies Press, Washington DC 2011Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW Jr, Hellinger M, Flanagan R Jr, Peters W, Nelson H, Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (2007) Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg 246(4):655–662 (discussion 662–664)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven D. Schwaitzberg
    • 1
  • Kurt Roberts
    • 2
  • John R. Romanelli
    • 3
  • David J. Desilets
    • 4
  • David Earle
    • 5
  • Santiago Horgan
    • 6
  • Lee Swanstrom
    • 7
  • Eric Hungness
    • 8
  • Nathaniel Soper
    • 8
  • Michael L. Kochman
    • 9
  • on behalf of the Natural Orifice Surgery Consortium for Assessment and Research® (NOSCAR®) Clinical Trial Group
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, The Jacobs School of MedicineUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryYale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Baystate Medical CenterSpringfieldUSA
  4. 4.Department of MedicineUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Baystate Medical CenterSpringfieldUSA
  5. 5.Lowell General HospitalLowellUSA
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryUniversity of California San Diego School of MedicineSan DiegoUSA
  7. 7.Department of SurgeryThe Oregon Clinic, Portland Oregon, IHUStrasbourgFrance
  8. 8.Department of SurgeryNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  9. 9.Gastroenterology Division, Department of MedicineUniversity of Pennsylvania Health SystemPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations