Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 11/2018

16.05.2018

Does obesity influence the results in Transvaginal Hybrid-NOTES cholecystectomy?

verfasst von: Dirk R. Bulian, Jurgen Knuth, Panagiotis Thomaidis, Anna Rieger, Claudia Simone Seefeldt, Jonas Lange, Jurgen Meyer, Michael A. Stroehlein, Markus M. Heiss

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 11/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Morbidly obese patients are usually excluded from studies that compare Transvaginal Hybrid-NOTES Cholecystectomy (TVC) with traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Therefore, these study results cannot necessarily be transferred to this group of patients. In this study, we have analyzed and compared the outcomes of the procedure with obese and non-obese patients.

Methods

Data from a prospectively maintained database were retrospectively analyzed. All the TVCs performed in our clinic since 2008 were divided into groups according to their body mass index (BMI). Within these groups, we evaluated the following outcome parameters: age, ASA classification, procedural time, number of percutaneous trocars, intra- and postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay. Additionally, the posthospital surgical and gynecological follow-up was evaluated for additional complications and patients with class III obesity were contacted to determine further parameters.

Results

Six underweight, 76 normal weight, 72 overweight, 48 class I obesity, 15 class II obesity, and 20 class III obesity patients were analyzed. ASA classification (P < 0.001), procedural time (P < 0.001), and number of percutaneous trocars (P < 0.001) significantly increased with the BMI. By contrast, intra- and postoperative complications (P = 0.134 and P = 0.571), as well as postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.076) did not depend on the BMI. Neither did the classification according to Clavien/Dindo show a significant relation (P = 0.640). Lethality was zero. All posthospital gynecological follow-ups were inconspicuous. Telephone follow-up of class III obesity patients reached a rate of 85% after median 3.4 years. There were no additional complications or problems during sexual intercourse. The satisfaction with the cosmetic and the overall result was very high.

Conclusions

Although the results of existing studies including normal-weight or merely moderately obese patients can hardly be applied to morbidly obese patients, especially regarding procedural time and the number of percutaneous trocars, obesity should not be an exclusion criterion for TVC, regardless of its magnitude.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Zornig C, Emmermann A, von Waldenfels HA, Mofid H (2007) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy without visible scar: combined transvaginal and transumbilical approach. Endoscopy 39:913–915CrossRef Zornig C, Emmermann A, von Waldenfels HA, Mofid H (2007) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy without visible scar: combined transvaginal and transumbilical approach. Endoscopy 39:913–915CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Borchert DH, Federlein M, Fritze-Buttner F, Burghardt J, Liersch-Lohn B, Atas Y, Muller V, Ruckbeil O, Wagenpfeil S, Graber S, Gellert K (2014) Postoperative pain after transvaginal cholecystectomy: single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 28:1886–1894CrossRef Borchert DH, Federlein M, Fritze-Buttner F, Burghardt J, Liersch-Lohn B, Atas Y, Muller V, Ruckbeil O, Wagenpfeil S, Graber S, Gellert K (2014) Postoperative pain after transvaginal cholecystectomy: single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 28:1886–1894CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bulian DR, Knuth J, Cerasani N, Sauerwald A, Lefering R, Heiss MM (2015) Transvaginal/transumbilical hybrid–NOTES–versus 3-trocar needlescopic cholecystectomy: short-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 261:451–458CrossRef Bulian DR, Knuth J, Cerasani N, Sauerwald A, Lefering R, Heiss MM (2015) Transvaginal/transumbilical hybrid–NOTES–versus 3-trocar needlescopic cholecystectomy: short-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 261:451–458CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Noguera JF, Cuadrado A, Dolz C, Olea JM, Garcia JC (2012) Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) (NCT00835250). Surg Endosc 26:3435–3441CrossRef Noguera JF, Cuadrado A, Dolz C, Olea JM, Garcia JC (2012) Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) (NCT00835250). Surg Endosc 26:3435–3441CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Borchert D, Federlein M, Ruckbeil O, Burghardt J, Fritze F, Gellert K (2012) Prospective evaluation of transvaginal assisted cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 26:3597–3604CrossRef Borchert D, Federlein M, Ruckbeil O, Burghardt J, Fritze F, Gellert K (2012) Prospective evaluation of transvaginal assisted cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 26:3597–3604CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Bulian DR, Trump L, Knuth J, Siegel R, Sauerwald A, Strohlein MA, Heiss MM (2013) Less pain after transvaginal/transumbilical cholecystectomy than after the classical laparoscopic technique: short-term results of a matched-cohort study. Surg Endosc 27:580–586CrossRef Bulian DR, Trump L, Knuth J, Siegel R, Sauerwald A, Strohlein MA, Heiss MM (2013) Less pain after transvaginal/transumbilical cholecystectomy than after the classical laparoscopic technique: short-term results of a matched-cohort study. Surg Endosc 27:580–586CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Hensel M, Schernikau U, Schmidt A, Arlt G (2012) Comparison between transvaginal and laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a retrospective case-control study. Zentralbl Chir 137:48–54CrossRef Hensel M, Schernikau U, Schmidt A, Arlt G (2012) Comparison between transvaginal and laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a retrospective case-control study. Zentralbl Chir 137:48–54CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Kilian M, Raue W, Menenakos C, Wassersleben B, Hartmann J (2011) Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:709–715CrossRef Kilian M, Raue W, Menenakos C, Wassersleben B, Hartmann J (2011) Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:709–715CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Niu J, Song W, Yan M, Fan W, Niu W, Liu E, Peng C, Lin P, Li P, Khan AQ (2011) Transvaginal laparoscopically assisted endoscopic cholecystectomy: preliminary clinical results for a series of 43 cases in China. Surg Endosc 25:1281–1286CrossRef Niu J, Song W, Yan M, Fan W, Niu W, Liu E, Peng C, Lin P, Li P, Khan AQ (2011) Transvaginal laparoscopically assisted endoscopic cholecystectomy: preliminary clinical results for a series of 43 cases in China. Surg Endosc 25:1281–1286CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 26:3058–3066CrossRef 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 26:3058–3066CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 26:2823–2827CrossRef 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 26:2823–2827CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat van den Boezem PB, Velthuis S, Lourens HJ, Cuesta MA, Sietses C (2014) Single-incision and NOTES cholecystectomy, are there clinical or cosmetic advantages when compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A case-control study comparing single-incision, transvaginal, and conventional laparoscopic technique for cholecystectomy. World J Surg 38:25–32CrossRef van den Boezem PB, Velthuis S, Lourens HJ, Cuesta MA, Sietses C (2014) Single-incision and NOTES cholecystectomy, are there clinical or cosmetic advantages when compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A case-control study comparing single-incision, transvaginal, and conventional laparoscopic technique for cholecystectomy. World J Surg 38:25–32CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Wood SG, Dabu-Bondoc S, Dai F, Mikhael H, Vadivelu N, Roberts KE (2014) Comparison of immediate postoperative pain after transvaginal versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 28:1141–1145CrossRef Wood SG, Dabu-Bondoc S, Dai F, Mikhael H, Vadivelu N, Roberts KE (2014) Comparison of immediate postoperative pain after transvaginal versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 28:1141–1145CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Zornig C, Siemssen L, Emmermann A, Alm M, von Waldenfels HA, Felixmuller 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 25:1822–1826CrossRef Zornig C, Siemssen L, Emmermann A, Alm M, von Waldenfels HA, Felixmuller 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 25:1822–1826CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Rothwell PM (2005) External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet 365:82–93CrossRef Rothwell PM (2005) External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet 365:82–93CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Xu J, Xu L, Li L, Zha S, Hu Z (2014) Comparison of outcome and side effects between conventional and transvaginal laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 24:395–399CrossRef Xu J, Xu L, Li L, Zha S, Hu Z (2014) Comparison of outcome and side effects between conventional and transvaginal laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 24:395–399CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Xu B, Xu B, Zheng WY, Ge HY, Wang LW, Song ZS, He B (2015) Transvaginal cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 21:5393–5406CrossRef Xu B, Xu B, Zheng WY, Ge HY, Wang LW, Song ZS, He B (2015) Transvaginal cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 21:5393–5406CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Sodergren MH, Markar S, Pucher PH, Badran IA, Jiao LR, Darzi A (2015) Safety of transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 29:2077–2090CrossRef Sodergren MH, Markar S, Pucher PH, Badran IA, Jiao LR, Darzi A (2015) Safety of transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 29:2077–2090CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Peng C, Ling Y, Ma C, Ma X, Fan W, Niu W, Niu J (2016) Safety outcomes of NOTES cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Percutaneous Tech 26:347–353CrossRef Peng C, Ling Y, Ma C, Ma X, Fan W, Niu W, Niu J (2016) Safety outcomes of NOTES cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Percutaneous Tech 26:347–353CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Shabanzadeh DM, Sorensen LT, Jorgensen T (2016) Determinants for gallstone formation—a new data cohort study and a systematic review with meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 51:1239–1248CrossRef Shabanzadeh DM, Sorensen LT, Jorgensen T (2016) Determinants for gallstone formation—a new data cohort study and a systematic review with meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 51:1239–1248CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Talseth A, Ness-Jensen E, Edna TH, Hveem K (2016) Risk factors for requiring cholecystectomy for gallstone disease in a prospective population-based cohort study. Br J Surg 103:1350–1357CrossRef Talseth A, Ness-Jensen E, Edna TH, Hveem K (2016) Risk factors for requiring cholecystectomy for gallstone disease in a prospective population-based cohort study. Br J Surg 103:1350–1357CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosen M, Brody F, Ponsky J (2002) Predictive factors for conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 184:254–258CrossRef Rosen M, Brody F, Ponsky J (2002) Predictive factors for conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 184:254–258CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Does obesity influence the results in Transvaginal Hybrid-NOTES cholecystectomy?
verfasst von
Dirk R. Bulian
Jurgen Knuth
Panagiotis Thomaidis
Anna Rieger
Claudia Simone Seefeldt
Jonas Lange
Jurgen Meyer
Michael A. Stroehlein
Markus M. Heiss
Publikationsdatum
16.05.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 11/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6216-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 11/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.