Magnetic retraction in natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): addressing the problem of traction and countertraction

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: Because of their reliance on the flexible endoscope, most current procedures in natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) suffer from the inability to vigorously grasp and move tissue or to retract organs. We aimed to assess the use of internal and external magnets that might allow the vigorous multiaxial traction/countertraction required in more complicated NOTES procedures.

Methods: Ex vivo and in vivo porcine model. Study components were: (1) Evaluation of force–distance relationship of this magnetic retraction system using a digital tensiometer. (2) Application of this magnetic retraction system to two procedures in the porcine model: (a) Liver retraction during transcolonic cholecystectomy in five nonsurvival pigs. Procedure time was recorded and compared to historical controls. (b) Mesh positioning for implantation into the anterior abdominal wall for ventral hernia repair in three survival pigs.

Results: Over a distance of 5 cm to 0.25 cm, the magnetic force of our system increased from 3 to 90 gramforce (29.42 to 882.60 mN.) In vivo, the magnet system provided robust liver retraction, shortening the procedure time of NOTES cholecystectomy from a historical mean of 68 minutes (range 42 – 90 minutes; n = 5) to 49.6 minutes (range 33 – 61 minutes; n = 3). The magnetic system also greatly enhanced mesh positioning and stability, and these animals survived for 2 weeks without complications.

Conclusions: Our basic system provided critical liver retraction during NOTES cholecystectomy and was also instrumental in moving and stabilizing mesh for implantation during NOTES ventral hernia repair. Magnets can potentially provide the vigorous traction and countertraction required to advance NOTES procedures.

References

• 1 Park P O, Bergstrom M, Ikeda K. et al . Experimental studies of transgastric gallbladder surgery: cholecystectomy and cholecystogastric anastomosis (videos).  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  61 601-606
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Swanstromm L L, Kozarek R, Pasricha P J. et al . Development of a new access device for transgastric surgery.  J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;  9 1129-1136
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Chopita N, Vaillaverde A, Cope C. et al . Endoscopic gastroenteric anastomosis using magnets.  Endoscopy. 2005;  37 313-317
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Arana A, Hauser B, Hachimi-Idrissi S. et al . Management of ingested foreign bodies in childhood and review of the literature.  Eur J Pediatr. 2001;  160 468-72
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Chow D R, Garretson B R, Kuczynski B. et al . External versus internal approach to the removal of metallic intraocular foreign bodies.  Retina. 2000;  20 364-369
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Noar J H, Evans R D. Rare earth magnets in orthodontics: an overview.  Br J Orthod. 1999;  26 29-37
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Pai R D, Fong D G, Bundga M E. et al . Transcolonic endoscopic cholecystectomy: a NOTES survival study in a porcine model (with video).  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  64 428-434
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Fong D G, Pai R D, Thompson C C. Transcolonic endoscopic abdominal exploration: a NOTES survival study in a porcine model.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  65 312-318
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Fong D G, Ryou M, Pai R D. et al . Transcolonic ventral wall hernia mesh fixation in a porcine model.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 865-869
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

C. C. ThompsonMD, MHES 

Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Division of Gastroenterology

75 Francis St
Boston, MA 02115
USA

Email: ccthompson@partners.org