title: Natural orifice versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a porcine model: a randomized, controlled trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) research has primarily involved case series reports of low-risk procedures. Distal pancreatectomy has significant postoperative morbidity and would permit rigorous examination in a controlled trial setting.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare endoscopic transgastric distal pancreatectomy (ETDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
  
  
  METHODS
  Academic hospital.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forty-one swine, 28 block randomized.
  
  
  METHODS
  LDP was performed with 3 trocars and stapled transection of the pancreas. ETDP was performed via a gastrotomy, with 1 trocar for visualization, by using endoloop placement, snare transection, and purse-string gastrotomy closure.
  
  
  METHODS
  Clinical examination, CT, serum chemistries, necropsy, peritoneal fluid analysis, and histologic examination.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Swine were survived for 8 days. The procedure time for ETDP was significantly greater than for LDP (1:52 vs 0:33 [hours:minutes]; P = .00). Pancreatic specimen weight was similar (4.1 g vs 5.5 g; P = .108). Postoperatively, 26 of 28 animals thrived. In the LDP group, 1 death caused by pancreatic leak and renal failure occurred on day 1. In the ETDP group, 1 death caused by pneumothorax occurred intraoperatively. The necropsy, CT, and histologic examinations revealed focal resection-margin necrosis in 3 to 7 swine in the ETDP group with no proximal necrosis or pancreatitis. The groups were equivalent clinically, by survival, and by serum and peritoneal fluid analysis. The gastrotomy closure was associated with small serosal adhesions, but no gross abscess or necrosis.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Animal study.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In the largest controlled trial of NOTES orifice surgery to date, there was no clinical or survival difference between NOTES and laparoscopic approaches.
authors: Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
authors: Field F
authors: FF
authors: Willingham
authors: Denise W
authors: DW
authors: Gee
authors: Patricia
authors: P
authors: Sylla
authors: Avinash
authors: A
authors: Kambadakone
authors: Anand H
authors: AH
authors: Singh
authors: Dushyant
authors: D
authors: Sahani
authors: Mari
authors: M
authors: Mino-Kenudson
authors: David W
authors: DW
authors: Rattner
authors: William R
authors: WR
authors: Brugge
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D004724:Endoscopy; D010535:Laparoscopy; D023421:Models, Animal; D010180:Pancreatectomy / Q000379:methods*; D013552:Swine