↓ Skip to main content

Inflammatory response and peritoneal contamination after transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) versus mini-laparotomy: a porcine in vivo study

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Inflammatory response and peritoneal contamination after transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) versus mini-laparotomy: a porcine in vivo study
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5811-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonas D. Senft, Tilman Dröscher, Philip Gath, Philip C. Müller, Adrian Billeter, Beat P. Müller-Stich, Georg R. Linke

Abstract

Transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) avoids abdominal organ retrieval during laparoscopic procedures and may reduce surgical trauma. However, this has not been proven clinically and transrectal peritoneal contamination is feared to cause infectious complications. This experimental study was designed to evaluate inflammatory response and peritoneal contamination after transrectal NOSE versus mini-laparotomy. 24 German Landrace pigs underwent transrectal NOSE (N = 12) or mini-laparotomy (N = 12) for standardized extraction of water-instilled balloon. Blood samples were taken for analysis of leucocytes, CRP, IL-6, IL-10, and TNFα at 6, 12, 24, 48, 72 h as well as 7 and 14 days postoperatively. After 14 days laparoscopy was performed to inspect the abdomen and for microbiological swab sampling. Leucocytes were higher in the NOSE group at 72 h (19.3 ± 3.9/nl vs. 15.8 ± 4.2/nl, p = 0.046). IL-6 was lower in the NOSE group at day 7 (165 ± 100/nl vs. 306 ± 70/nl, p = 0.030). No difference was found comparing inflammatory parameters at all other time points. No difference was found regarding peritoneal contamination, which was 58.3% (7/12) in the NOSE group and 41.7% (5/12) in the MiniLap group (p = 0.414). The results suggest a pronounced acute inflammatory response after transrectal NOSE compared to mini-laparotomy, while late cytokine response seems to be less after transrectal NOSE, which may reflect less intense wound healing process. Using standardized rectal decontamination and endolumenal colon occlusion transrectal NOSE seems to be safe and comparable to mini-laparotomy with regard to peritoneal contamination. Clinical evidence is needed now to weight transrectal NOSE against mini-laparotomy during laparoscopic surgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Unspecified 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Unknown 7 54%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 31%
Unspecified 1 8%
Psychology 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Unknown 6 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,876,200
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,033
of 6,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,931
of 316,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#81
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,096 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.