Patient Perception of Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery in an Endoscopy Screening Program in Korea

PURPOSE: Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a new method of accessing intracavitary organs in order to minimize pain by avoiding incisions in the body wall. The aim of this study is to determine patients' acceptance of NOTES in Korea and to compare their views about laparoscopic surgery and NOTES for benign and malignant diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The target number of total subjects was calculated to be 540. The subjects were classified into 18 sub-groups based on age groups, gender, and history of prior surgery. The questionnaire elicited information about demographic characteristics, medical check-ups, diseases, endoscopic and surgical histories, marital status and childbirth, the acceptance of NOTES, and the preferred routes for NOTES. In addition, the subjects chose laparoscopic surgery or NOTES for a hypothetical cholecystectomy and rectal cancer surgery, and responded to questions regarding the acceptable complication rate of NOTES, the appropriate cost of NOTES, and the reason(s) why they did not select NOTES. RESULTS: 486 of 540 patients (90.0%) who agreed to participate in this study completed the questionnaire. NOTES was preferred by the following patients: elderly; a history of treatment due to a disease; having regular check-ups; and a history of an endoscopic procedure (p<0.05). The most preferred route for NOTES was the stomach (67.1%). Eighty-four percent of the patients choosing NOTES responded that the complication rate of the new surgical method should be the same or lower than laparoscopic surgery. Vague anxiety over a new surgical method was the most common reason why NOTES was not selected in benign and malignant diseases (64% and 73%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients appear to be interested in the potential benefits of NOTES and would embrace it if their concerns about safety are met. We believe that qualified surgical endoscopists can meet these safety concerns, and that NOTES development has the potential to flourish.

Comparative Study of Complete and Partial Omentectomy in Radical Subtotal Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE: Curative surgery for patients with advanced or even early gastric cancer can be defined as resection of the stomach and dissection of the first and second level lymph nodes, including the greater omentum. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long- term outcomes of partial omentectomy (PO) as compared with complete omentectomy (CO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen consecutive open distal gastrectomies with POs were initially performed between February and July in 2006. The patients' clinicopathologic data and post-operative outcomes were retrospectively compared with 20 patients who underwent open distal gastrectomies with COs for early gastric cancer in 2005. RESULTS: The operation time in PO group was significantly shorter than that in CO group (142.4 minutes vs. 165.0 minutes, p=0.018). The serum albumin concentration on the first post-operative day in PO group was significantly higher than CO group (3.8 g/dL vs. 3.5 g/dL, p=0.018). Three postoperative minor complications were successfully managed with conservative treatment. Median follow-up period between PO and CO was 38.1 and 37.7 months. All patients were alive without recurrence until December 30, 2009. CONCLUSION: PO during open radical distal gastrectomy can be considered a more useful procedure than CO for treating early gastric cancer. To document the long-term technical and oncologic safety of this procedure, a large-scale prospective randomized trial will be needed.