Skip to main content
Log in

Transvaginal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a survey of women’s views on a new technique

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic and minimally invasive surgery has changed the surgical landscape irrevocably. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) offers the possibility of surgery without visible scars. Transvaginal entry offers potential benefits because it gains access to the peritoneal cavity without the need to open an abdominal viscus. Much of the discussion pertaining to NOTES focuses on technical and training issues, with little attention to date paid to the opinions of women. The perceptions of female health care workers and patients were sought in relation to their views on transvaginal NOTES.

Methods

This study surveyed 300 women using a 12-point questionnaire devised by a multidisciplinary group of surgeons interested in minimally invasive surgery. The questionnaire was designed to establish the opinions of women with respect to NOTES surgery versus standard laparoscopic procedures. Responses were de-identified.

Results

Three-fourths of the women surveyed were neutral or unhappy about the prospect of a NOTES procedure, and this remained constant even when it was stipulated that laparoscopic cholecystectomy and NOTES had equivalent safety and efficacy. Younger nulliparous women were most concerned about the potential negative effect of NOTES on sexual function. A minority were concerned about the cosmetic effect of surgery, although surgical scars were perceived as more important to younger respondents.

Conclusions

Potentially, NOTES surgery offers women a scarless operation with the possibility of less pain than experienced in standard laparoscopic surgery. Few women, however, were troubled about the cosmetic effect of surgery. The effect of NOTES on sexual function was expressed as a particular concern by younger women. In all groups and across all ages, peritoneal access using the transvaginal route was met by significant scepticism. In Australia, women remain to be convinced about the potential advantages of the emerging NOTES technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vigano l, Tayar C, Laurent A, Cherqui D (2009) Laparoscopic liver surgery: a systematic review. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:410–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Uranues S, Alimoglu O (2005) Laparoscopic surgery of the spleen. Surg Clin North Am 85:785–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gurusamy K, Junnarkar S, Farouk M, Davidson BR (2008) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and effectiveness of day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 95:161–168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wattiez A, Cohen SB, Selvaggi L (2002) Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 14:417–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Giger UF, Michel JM, Opitz I, Th Inderbitzin D, Kocher T, Krahenbuhl L (2006) Risk factors for perioperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: analysis of 22,953 consecutive cases from the Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic Surgery database. J Am Coll Surg 203:723–728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Hill SL, Vaughn CA, Magee CA, Kantsevoy SV (2004) Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 60:114–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bessler M, Stevens PD, Milone L, Parikh M, Fowler D (2007) Transvaginal laparoscopically assisted endoscopic cholecystectomy: a hybrid approach to natural orifice surgery. Gastrointest Endosc 66:1243–1245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Rangaranjan M, Parthasarathi R, Senthilnathan P, Prasad M (2008) Transvaginal endoscopic appendectomy in humans: a unique approach to NOTES: world’s first report. Surg Endosc 22:1343–1347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Willingham FF, Brugge WR (2007) Taking NOTES: translumenal flexible endoscopy and endoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 23:550–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gumbs AA, Fowler D, Milone L, Evanko JC, Ude AO, Stevens P, Bessler M (2009) Transvaginal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery cholecystectomy: early evolution of the technique. Ann Surg 249:908–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yan SL, Thompson-Fawcett M (2009) NOTES: a new dimension of minimally invasive surgery. ANZ J Surg 79:583–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boni L, Dionigi G, Rovera F (2009) Natural orifices transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and other allied “ultra” minimally invasive procedures: are we loosing the plot? Surg Endosc 23:927–929

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maddern GJ (2009) NOTES: progress or marketing? ANZ J Surg 79:337–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Peterson CY, Ramamoorthy S, Andrews B, Horgan S, Talamini M, Chock A (2009) Women’s positive perception of transvaginal NOTES surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1770–1774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Swanstrom LL, Volckmann E, Hungness E, Soper NJ (2009) Patient attitudes and expectations regarding natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1519–1525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Drelichman ER (2008) Patient perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery as a technique for cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 67:854–860

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. El-Toukhy TA, Hefni MA, Davies AE, Mahadevan S (2004) The effect of different types of hysterectomy on urinary and sexual functions: a prospective study. J Obstet Gynaecol 24:420–425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dallenbach P, Kaelin-Gambirasio I, Jacob S, Dubuisson JB, Boulvain M (2008) Incidence rate and risk factors for vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:1623–1629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Jacqueline Stephens and Sheona Page for their help in questionnaire design as well as data collection and collation.

Disclosures

Andrew D. Strickland, Michael G. A. Norwood, Fariba Behnia-Willison, Santosh A. Olakkengil, and Peter J. Hewett have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. Hewett.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Healthcare Professionals Questionnaire

figure a

Appendix 2: Gynecology Outpatient Group

figure b

Appendix 3: Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Group

figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Strickland, A.D., Norwood, M.G.A., Behnia-Willison, F. et al. Transvaginal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a survey of women’s views on a new technique. Surg Endosc 24, 2424–2431 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-0968-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-0968-3

Keywords

Navigation