Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Surgery Insight: natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery—an analysis of work to date

Abstract

Traditional flexible endoscopy has been limited to the confines of the gastrointestinal lumen; however, recent developments involving transluminal access to intra-abdominal structures hold the potential to revolutionize flexible endoscopy. Over the past few years various studies have detailed techniques that intentionally breach the lumen and provide endoscopic access to the peritoneal cavity for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Unlike standard surgical approaches, which require incisions to be made in the abdominal wall, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) avoids the need for abdominal incisions and can offer specific advantages to select patient populations. Animal models have been used to demonstrate the possible applications of NOTES, including transgastric peritoneoscopy, tubal ligation, gastrojejunostomy, partial hysterectomy, oophorectomy, and transcolonic exploration, liver biopsy and cholecystectomy. In this Review, we highlight important advances in NOTES since it was first described and analyze the hazards and potential benefits associated with this innovative approach.

Key Points

  • Endoscopic access to the peritoneal cavity via transgastric and transcolonic routes has been recently described in animal models and termed Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES)

  • This 'scarless' surgery avoids abdominal incisions and could be advantageous in specific patient populations

  • With improved endoscopic tools, NOTES could become an acceptable alternative and the preferred approach for management of certain abdominopelvic conditions in select cases

  • The proposed benefits and safety of scarless access to the peritoneal cavity need to be conclusively demonstrated in clinical studies before universal acceptance of NOTES

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: An excellent view of the peritoneal cavity obtained by transluminal endoscopy
Figure 2: A retroflexed view after transgastric access showing the parietal peritoneum and bowel loops

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Litynski GS (1999) Endoscopic surgery: the history, the pioneers. World J Surg 23: 745–753

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Decker A et al. (1944) Culdoscopy: A new method in the diagnosis of pelvic disease—a preliminary report. Am J Surg 64: 40–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Litynski GS (1998) Erich Muhe and the rejection of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (1985): a surgeon ahead of his time. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 2: 341–346

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mouret P (1991) From the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy to the frontiers of laparoscopic surgery: the future perspectives. Dig Surg 8: 1124–1125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Keus F et al. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD006231. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006231

  6. Ceppa FA et al. (2007) Laparoscopic transgastric endoscopy after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 3: 21–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Peters M et al. (2002) Laparoscopic transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for benign common bile duct stricture after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 16: 1106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kalloo AN et al. (2004) Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 60: 114–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. ASGE/SAGES Working Group on Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery White Paper 2005 (2006) Gastrointest Endosc 63: 199–203

  10. Jagannath SB et al. (2005) Peroral transgastric endoscopic ligation of fallopian tubes with long-term survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 61: 449–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kantsevoy SV et al. (2005) Endoscopic gastrojejunostomy with survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 62: 287–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Park PO et al. (2005) Experimental studies of transgastric gallbladder surgery: cholecystectomy and cholecystogastric anastomosis. Gastrointest Endosc 61: 601–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wagh MS et al. (2005) Endoscopic transgastric abdominal exploration and organ resection: initial experience in a porcine model. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 3: 892–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wagh MS et al. (2006) Survival studies after endoscopic transgastric oophorectomy and tubectomy in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 63: 473–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Merrifield BF et al. (2006) Peroral transgastric organ resection: a feasibility study in pigs. Gastrointest Endosc 63: 693–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kantsevoy SV et al. (2006) Transgastric endoscopic splenectomy: is it possible? Surg Endosc 20: 522–525

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilk PJ (1994) Method for use in intra-abdominal surgery. US Patent 5,297,536

  18. Tsin DA et al. (2003) Culdolaparoscopic cholecystectomy during vaginal hysterectomy. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 7: 171–172

    Google Scholar 

  19. Natural Orifice Surgery Consortium for Assessment and Research (NOSCAR™) International Conference on Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES™) [http://www.noscar.org/conference06.html]

  20. Pai RD et al. (2006) Transcolonic endoscopic cholecystectomy: a NOTES survival study in a porcine model (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 64: 428–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fong DG et al. (2007) Transcolonic endoscopic abdominal exploration: a NOTES survival study in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 65: 312–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fong DG et al. (2006) Transcolonic hepatic wedge resection in a porcine model [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 63: AB102

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chak A et al. (2006) EUS Guided natural orifice transvisceral endoscopic surgical (NOTES) approach to the retroperitoneum [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 63: AB264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Matthes K et al. (2006) Feasibility of endoscopic transgastric distal pancreatectomy (ETDP) in the pig [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 63: AB229

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fong DG et al. (2006) Transcolonic access to the peritoneal cavity using a novel incision and closure device [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 63: AB233

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pasricha P et al. (2005) A next generation therapeutic endoscope: development of a novel endoluminal surgery system with “birds-eye” visualization and triangulating instruments [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 61: AB106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Swanstrom LL et al. (2005) Development of a new access device for transgastric surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 9: 1129–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Park PO et al. (2006) Measurements of intraperitoneal pressure during flexible transgastric surgery and the development of a feed-back control valve for regulating pressure [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 63: AB101

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hu B et al. (2005) Endoscopic suturing without extracorporeal knots: a laboratory study. Gastrointest Endosc 62: 230–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kuhry E et al. (2004) Effect of laparoscopy on the immune system. Semin Laparosc Surg 11: 37–44

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sylla P et al. (2005) Immunological advantages of advanced laparoscopy. Surg Clin North Am 85: 1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. NOSCAR website [www.noscar.org]

Download references

Acknowledgements

Charles P Vega, University of California, Irvine, CA, is the author of and is solely responsible for the content of the learning objectives, questions and answers of the Medscape-accredited continuing medical education activity associated with this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher C Thompson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wagh, M., Thompson, C. Surgery Insight: natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery—an analysis of work to date. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 4, 386–392 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep0867

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep0867

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing