Investigation for Acceptance of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery by Inpatients with Digestive Diseases

Wen Li,Jianguo Xiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.03.187

IF: 10.396

2008-01-01

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Abstract:Background: The novel concept of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is rapidly and increasingly accepted by doctors, but how patients think of it remains unclear. Aim: To study the acceptance of NOTES by the patients admitted with gastrointestinal disorders. Methods: Patients aged 18 to 75 years old with normal perception and unaffected judgment and with various gastrointestinal disorders, were enrolled in this study. Basic patient's informati on (age, gender, education background and past medical history) was collected by a questionnaire. Following the explanation of traditional open surgery, laparoscopy and NOTES procedures, all patients were asked two questions: 1. Which method do you prefer to treat your illness: traditional open surgery, laparoscopy or NOTES? 2. What was the main reason to make your choice: safety, effectiveness, post-operative scars, abdominal wounds, or others? Results: Two hundred and forty-five patients (146 males, 99 females) were involved in this study. All patients were divided into 3 groups according to their answers: laparoscopy group (44.5%) NOTES group (32.2%) and open surgery group (23.3%). The mean age was significantly younger in NOTES group (45.8 year-old) than that in laparoscopy group (52.4 year-old) (P < 0.01) and that in open surgery group (58.1 year-old) (P < 0.01). There was significant difference in education background between the 3 groups: patients with college education were majority (67.1%) in NOTES group comparing with 43.1% in laparoscopy group and only 12.3% in open surgery group (P < 0.01). Logistic regression analysis showed that the choice of therapeutic methods did not correlate to patients' gender or past history of open surgery (P > 0.05), but correlated strongly with the patients' age, education background and past history of therapeutic endoscopy or laparoscopy (P = 0.015). The most common reasons affected patients' choices were effectiveness (42.0%), abdominal wound (36.3%), safety (13.5%) and postoperative scars (8.2%). Although almost one third of the patients in this study (32.2%) chose NOTES, none of them trusted its safety and only 7.6% of them believed in its effectiveness. Conclusions: Absolute majority (76.7%) of patients admitted with gastrointestinal disorders preferred less invasive methods (laparoscopy and NOTES) to traditional open surgery, despite considering surgery more effective and safer intervention. Younger patients with higher education background favored NOTES for esthetical reasons, even if they had doubts about its safety and effectiveness.