Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 7/2011

01-07-2011

Female population perception of conventional laparoscopy, transumbilical LESS, and transvaginal NOTES for cholecystectomy

Authors: Pascal Bucher, Sandrine Ostermann, François Pugin, Philippe Morel

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 7/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Recent population survey has shown a preference for transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (U-LESS) compared with natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for cholecystectomy, assuming similar surgical risk. This study was designed to evaluate the perception and preference of women regarding conventional laparoscopy, U-LESS, and transvaginal NOTES (TV-NOTES) with particular interest to access perception.

Methods

An anonymous questionnaire on laparoscopic, U-LESS, and TV-NOTES cholecystectomy, without regards to risks or advantages, was given to female medical/paramedical staff (n = 100), patients (n = 100), and the general population (n = 100). Women participants (median age, 35 (range, 16–79) years) were queried about preference, perception of the different accesses, and personal informations. Of the respondents, 54% had children, 79% had stable relationships, and 96% were sexually active (vaginal intercourse).

Results

With similar operative risk, 87% preferred U-LESS, 4% TV-NOTES and 8% laparoscopy. LESS/NOTES choice was influenced by a desire of improved cosmetics (82%) and lower pain (44%). 96% had worries regarding transvaginal access, among them: dyspareunia (68%), decreased sensibility during intercourse (43%), refuse of short-term sexual abstinence (40%), and infertility (23%). Transumbilical access evocated worries in 35%: umbilical pain (19%), postoperative umbilical sensibility (15%), and incisional hernia (11%). Postoperative intercourse abstinence after TV-NOTES evocated worries in 76% (defined as 3 weeks in survey): feel less attractive (40%), less feminine (32%), tension with their intimate (35%), lover non-acceptation (20%), possible abortion of new relationship (26%), and feel less comfortable socially (16%).

Conclusions

The high acceptation rate for U-LESS approach compared with TV-NOTES may be related to fears regarding postoperative sexuality and fertility. The importance of temporary postoperative sexual abstinence (vaginal intercourse) is high and may be difficult to influence. Future research on TV-NOTES should focus on the access risk to be able to scientifically reassure our patients. For now, U-LESS seems to be favor compared with TV-NOTES for cholecystectomy in female patients.
Literature
1.
Gettman M, Box G, Averch T, Cadeddu JA, Cherullo E, Clayman RV, Desai M, Frank I, Gill IS, Gupta M, Haber GP, Humphreys M, Kaouk JH, Landman J, Lima E, Ponsky L (2008) Consensus statement on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery: heralding a new era in urology. Eur Urol 53(6):1117–1120PubMedCrossRef
2.
Kelley W (2008) Single port laparoscopic surgery. Laparosc Today 7(2):5–6
3.
Gill IS, Advincula AP, Aron M, Caddedu J, Canes D, Curcillo PG, Desai MM, Evanko JC, Falcone T, Fazio V, Gettman M, Gumbs AA, Haber GP, Kaouk JH, Kim F, King SA, Ponsky J, Remzi F, Rivas H, Rosemurgy A, Ross S, Schauer P, Sotelo R, Speranza J, Sweeney J, Teixeira J (2010) Consensus statement of the consortium for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Surg Endosc 24(4):762–768PubMedCrossRef
4.
Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P (2009) Scarless surgery: reality through umbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS)? Rev Med Suisse 5(209):1412–1415PubMed
5.
Zornig C, Mofid H, Siemssen L, Wenck CH (2010) Transvaginal access for NOTES. Chirurg 81(5):426–430PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zorron R, Palanivelu C, Galvao Neto MP, Ramos A, Salinas G, Burghardt J, DeCarli L, Henrique Sousa L, Forgione A, Pugliese R, Branco AJ, Balashanmugan TS, Boza C, Corcione F, D’avila Avila F, Arturo Gomez N, Martins S, Filgeueiras M, Gellert K, Rmirez E, Campos J, Rajan PS, Prasad M, Cuccurullo D, Muller V (2010) International multicenter trial on clinical natural orifice surgery–NOTES IMTN study: preliminary results of 362 patients. Surg Innov 17(2):142–158PubMedCrossRef
7.
Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P, Hagen M (2008) Scarless surgery: myth or reality through NOTES? Rev Med Suisse 4(163):1550–1552PubMed
8.
Thele F, Zygmunt M, Glitsch A, Heidecke CD, Schreiber A (2008) How do gynecologists feel about transvaginal NOTES surgery? Endoscopy 40(7):576–580PubMedCrossRef
9.
Curcillo PG II, Wu AS, Podolsky ER, Graybeal C, Katkhouda N, Saenz A, Dunham R, Fendley S, Neff M, Copper C, Bessler M, Gumbs AA, Norton M, Iannelli A, Mason R, Moazzez A, Cohen L, Mouhlas A, Poor A (2010) Single-port-access (SPA™) cholecystectomy: a multi-institutional report of the first 297 cases. Surg Endosc 24(8):1854–1860PubMedCrossRef
10.
Bucher P, Pugin F, Ostermann S, Morel P (2010) Patient’s point of view on surgical innovations: for less traumatic surgery and enhanced recovery. Rev Med Suisse 5(254):1292–1297
11.
12.
Swanstrom L, Volkmann E, Hungness E, Soper N (2009) Patient attitudes and expectations regarding natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23(7):1519–1525PubMedCrossRef
13.
Bucher P, Pugin F, Ostermann S, Ris F, Chilcott M, Morel P (2010) Population perception of surgical safety and body image trauma: a plea for scarless surgery? Surg Endosc doi:10.​1007/​s00464-010-1180-1
14.
Neugebauer EA, Becker M, Buess GF, Cuschieri A, Dauben HP, Fingerhut A, Fuchs KH, Habermalz B, Lantsberg L, Morino M, Reiter-Theil S, Soskuty G, Wayand W, Welsch T (2010) EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 24(7):1594–1615PubMedCrossRef
15.
Bucher P, Ostermann S, Pugin F, Morel P (2009) E-NOTES appendectomy versus transvaginal appendectomy: similar cosmetic results but shorter complete recovery? Surg Endosc 23(4):916–917PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
Otten A (1992) The influence of the mass media on health policy. Health Aff 11(4):111–118CrossRef
18.
Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs N, Ostermann S, Charara F, Morel P (2009) Single port access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (with video). World J Surg 33(5):1015–1018PubMedCrossRef
19.
Harrell A, Heniford B (2005) Minimally invasive abdominal surgery: lux et veritas past, present, and future. Am J Surg 190(2):239–243PubMedCrossRef
20.
Paganini A, Lomonto D, Navordino M (1995) One port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in selected patients. In: Third International congress on new technology in surgery, Luxembourg
21.
Navarra G, Ascanelli S, Sortini D, Soliani G, Pozza E, Carcoforo P (1997) One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 84(5):695PubMedCrossRef
22.
23.
Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Drelichman E (2008) Patient perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery as a technique for cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 67(6):854–860PubMedCrossRef
24.
Peterson CY, Ramamoorthy S, Andrews B, Horgan S, Talamini M, Chock A (2009) Women’s positive perception of transvaginal NOTES surgery. Surg Endosc 23(8):1770–1774PubMedCrossRef
25.
Li W, Xiao J (2008) Investigation for acceptance of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery by inpatients with digestive disease. Gastrointest Endosc 67(5):AB120CrossRef
26.
Strickland AD, Norwood MG, Behnia-Willison F, Olakkengil SA, Hewett PJ (2010) Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a survey of women’s views on a new technique. Surg Endosc 24(10):2424–2431PubMedCrossRef
27.
Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P (2010) From single-port access to laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 24(1):234–235PubMedCrossRef
28.
NHMRC (2000) How to use the evidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence. National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra
29.
Amias A (1975) Sexual life after gynaecological operation II. Br Med 21(5972):680–681CrossRef
30.
Palmer R (1984) Why the laparoscopic route for tubal sterilization? Contracept Fertil Sex 12(7):931–933
31.
Zornig C, Mofid H, Emmermann A, Alm M, Von Waldenfels HA, Felixmuller C (2008) Scarless cholecystectomy with combined transvaginal and transumbilical approach in a series of 20 patients. Surg Endosc 22(6):1427–1429PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zorron R, Maggioni L, Pombo L, Oliveira AL, Carvalho GL, Filgueiras M (2008) NOTES transvaginal cholecystectomy: preliminary clinical application. Surg Endosc 22(2):542–547PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Female population perception of conventional laparoscopy, transumbilical LESS, and transvaginal NOTES for cholecystectomy
Authors
Pascal Bucher
Sandrine Ostermann
François Pugin
Philippe Morel
Publication date
01-07-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 7/2011
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1554-4

Other articles of this Issue 7/2011

Surgical Endoscopy 7/2011 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopic repair of suprapubic hernias: transabdominal partial extraperitoneal (TAPE) technique

Technique

Transoral rotational esophagogastric fundoplication: technical, anatomical, and safety considerations

OriginalPaper

Single-port laparoscopic total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: initial operative experience

OriginalPaper

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective piecewise linear regression analysis

OriginalPaper

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy of gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumor

Review

Role of the laparoscopic approach to biliary bypass for benign and malignant biliary diseases: a systematic review