NOTES: new dimension of minimally invasive surgery.

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is an emerging experimental alternative to conventional surgery. NOTES eliminates abdominal incisions and incision-related complications by combining endoscopic and laparoscopic techniques to diagnose and treat abdominal pathology. Since the first NOTES was reported by Kalloo et al. in 2004, significant achievements in the laboratory have occurred. Clinical use in humans has been limited, but several cases and one small clinical trial were published recently. As a further technical revolution in minimally invasive surgery, NOTES has the promising potential to be safer, less invasive, provide better cosmesis and possibly be more cost-effective. The purpose of the present article was to review the development and current status of NOTES and highlight important advances associated with this innovative approach.

[Comparing the influencing factors of anastomotic bleeding in rectal carcinoma resection between laparoscopic and open radical approaches].

OBJECTIVE: To observe the occurrence of anastomotic bleeding following laparoscopic and open radical resection for rectal carcinoma, and to explore its contributing factors. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-three cases of rectal carcinoma undergone radical resection were divided into 2 groups, laparoscopic surgery (LS) group (n=86) and open surgery (OS) group (n=177). According to the different locations of anastomotic stoma and with or without preventive colostomy, the two groups were divided into AR sub-group and LAR/UAR sub-group, colostomy sub-group and non-colostomy sub-group. After analyzing the incidence of anastomotic bleeding in each sub-group, a logistic regression model was established to determine the relationships between anastomotic bleeding and three contributing factors including surgical approaches (LS or OS), location of stoma (AR or LAR/UAR) and preventive colostomy. RESULTS: Anastomotic bleeding occurred on 16 out of 263 patients with radical resection of rectal cancer (6.1%). The rates of anastomotic bleeding in LS group and OS group were 9.3% and 4.5%, in colostomy and non-colostomy were 8.1% and 5.5%, and in AR group and LAR/UAR group were 3.3% and 12.1% respectively, there were no significant differences between them (P>0.05). Comparing the two different surgical approaches (LS vs OS), the coefficient of regression, odd ratio and standard coefficient of regression for LS were 1.319, 3.741 and 0.342 respectively. In comparison of the locations of anastomosis (AR vs LAR/UAR), the three index for LAR/UAR were 2.460, 11.704, and 0.632 respectively. Comparing colostomy with non-colostomy, the three index for colostomy were -1.394, 0.248, and -0.327 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic bleeding after radical rectectomy is related to the choice of surgical approach, location of anastomosis and with or without preventive colostomy. Both LS and LAR/UAR are risk factors, and preventive colostomy is a protective factor. Regarding to the significance of three factors, location of anastomosis takes the first place, following by surgical method and with or without preventive colostomy.