Key Points
-
Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) nephrectomy, prostatectomy, and partial cystectomy are novel surgical techniques with tremendous promise as innovative approaches to the treatment urological diseases
-
NOTES techniques have undergone extensive preclinical development over the past decade, which has increased understanding and led to refinement of the methodology
-
NOTES can be performed via transgastric, transurethral, transrectal, and transvaginal routes, and either alone as 'pure NOTES', or in combination with laparoscopy surgery as 'hybrid NOTES'
-
In humans, NOTES procedures have primarily been used in proof-of-principle studies in cadavers or select patients; however, these have proven the feasibility of NOTES nephrectomy and prostatectomy
-
Considerable challenges continue to limit the widespread adoption of NOTES, including potential safety concerns, an unmet need for dedicated, specifically designed instruments, and the shortage of suitably skilled surgeons
-
Furthermore, stringent validation and comparison with laparoscopy and open-surgery techniques is needed to ensure that the current enthusiasm for NOTES techniques is supported by measureable improvements in patient outcomes
Abstract
Improvements in surgical techniques, and particularly the development and widespread clinical introduction of laparoscopy in the past two decades, have revolutionized the management of urological disease. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) holds promise in further advancing treatment outcomes in urology. This novel minimally invasive surgical approach can negate the requirement for skin incisions and, therefore, could potentially improve morbidity, convalescence, and cosmesis. After considerable preclinical development, the feasibility of 'hybrid' NOTES—involving concurrent laparoscopy—and 'pure' NOTES nephrectomy and prostatectomy procedures has now been successfully demonstrated in patients with urological conditions, whereas proof-of-concept studies of NOTES partial cystectomy have been performed in animal models. Whether such procedures offer therapeutic and safety benefits compared with traditional laparoscopic techniques remains unknown; indeed, concerns remain over the potential perioperative and postoperative adverse events associated with NOTES, such as incomplete closure of the entry-point incision, infection, and haemorrhage. In particular, however, the requirement for the development of specific rationally designed NOTES instrumentation as well as specially trained, highly skilled personnel to perform the surgery continues to restrict the utility of NOTES. Thus, considerable effort is now needed to shift the focus of research to refining NOTES methodologies to enable translation of these promising proof-of-principle studies into the clinic.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jiang, L. et al. Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Surg. Endosc. 27, 2466–2480 (2013).
Simon, G. Chirurgie der Nieren Vol. 2 [German]. 314 (Stuttgart, Ferdinand Enke, 1876).
Clayman, R. V. et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J. Urol. 146, 278–282 (1991).
Gettman, M. T., Lotan, Y., Napper, C. A. & Cadeddu, J. A. Transvaginal laparoscopic nephrectomy: development and feasibility in the porcine model. Urology 59, 446–450 (2002).
Lima, E. et al. Third-generation nephrectomy by natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. J. Urol. 178, 2648–2654 (2007).
Clayman, R. V. et al. Rapid communication: transvaginal single-port NOTES nephrectomy: initial laboratory experience. J. Endourol. 21, 640–644 (2007).
Box, G. N. et al. Rapid communication: robot-assisted NOTES nephrectomy: initial report. J. Endourol. 22, 503–506 (2008).
Haber, G. P. et al. Robotic NOTES (Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery) in reconstructive urology: initial laboratory experience. Urology 71, 996–1000 (2008).
Isariyawongse, J. P., McGee, M. F., Rosen, M. J., Cherullo, E. E. & Ponsky, L. E. Pure natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) nephrectomy using standard laparoscopic instruments in the porcine model. J. Endourol. 22, 1087–1091 (2008).
Crouzet, S. et al. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) renal cryoablation in a porcine model. BJU Int. 102, 1715–1718 (2008).
Haber, G. P. et al. Pure 'natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery' for transvaginal nephrectomy in the porcine model. BJU Int. 104, 1260–1264 (2009).
Raman, J. D. et al. Complete transvaginal NOTES nephrectomy using magnetically anchored instrumentation. J. Endourol. 23, 367–371 (2009).
Perretta, S. et al. Feasibility of right and left transvaginal retroperitoneal nephrectomy: from the porcine to the cadaver model. J. Endourol. 23, 1887–1892 (2009).
Aron, M. et al. Transvaginal nephrectomy with a multichannel laparoscopic port: a cadaver study. BJU Int. 103, 1537–1541 (2009).
Boylu, U., Oommen, M., Joshi, V., Thomas, R. & Lee, B. R. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) partial nephrectomy in a porcine model. Surg. Endosc. 24, 485–489 (2010).
Bazzi, W. M. et al. Transrectal hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) nephrectomy in a porcine model. Urology 77, 518–523 (2011).
Baldwin, D. D. et al. Hybrid transureteral natural orifice translumenal endoscopic nephrectomy: a feasibility study in the porcine model. J. Endourol. 25, 245–250 (2011).
Sánchez-Margallo, F. M. et al. Transvaginal NOTES-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy: a survival study in a sheep model. Surg. Endosc. 26, 926–932 (2012).
Lima, E., Branco, F., Parente, J., Autorino, R. & Correia-Pinto, J. Transvesical natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) nephrectomy with kidney morcellation: a proof of concept study. BJU Int. 109, 1533–1537 (2012).
Bazzi, W. M. et al. Feasibility of transrectal hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) nephrectomy in the cadaveric model. Urology 80, 590–595 (2012).
Bazzi, W. M. et al. Comparison of transrectal and transvaginal hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery partial nephrectomy in the porcine model. Urology 82, 84–89 (2013).
Eyraud, R. et al. Robot-assisted transrectal hybrid natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery nephrectomy and adrenalectomy: initial investigation in a cadaver model. Urology 81, 1090–1094 (2013).
Zeltser, I. S. et al. Single trocar laparoscopic nephrectomy using magnetic anchoring and guidance system in the porcine model. J. Urol. 178, 288–291 (2007).
Breda, G. et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy with vaginal delivery of the intact kidney. Eur. Urol. 24, 116–117 (1993).
Gill, I. S. et al. Vaginal extraction of the intact specimen following laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J. Urol. 167, 238–241 (2002).
Branco, A. W. et al. Hybrid transvaginal nephrectomy. Eur. Urol. 53, 1290–1294 (2008).
Alcaraz, A. et al. Feasibility of transvaginal NOTES-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. Eur. Urol. 57, 233–237 (2010).
Kaouk, J. H. et al. NOTES transvaginal nephrectomy: first human experience. Urology 74, 5–8 (2009).
Porpiglia, F., Fiori, C., Morra, I. & Scarpa, R. M. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery-assisted minilaparoscopic nephrectomy: a step towards scarless surgery. Eur. Urol. 60, 862–866 (2011).
Sotelo, R. et al. NOTES hybrid transvaginal radical nephrectomy for tumor: stepwise progression toward a first successful clinical case. Eur. Urol. 57, 138–144 (2010).
Alcaraz, A. et al. Feasibility of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery-assisted living donor nephrectomy: is kidney vaginal delivery the approach of the future? Eur. Urol. 59, 1019–1025 (2011).
Kaouk, J. H. et al. Transvaginal hybrid natural orifice transluminal surgery robotic donor nephrectomy: first clinical application. Urology 80, 1171–1175 (2012).
Kaouk, J. H. et al. Pure natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) transvaginal nephrectomy. Eur. Urol. 57, 723–726 (2010).
Hagen, M. E. et al. Robotic single-incision transabdominal and transvaginal surgery: initial experience with intersecting robotic arms. Int. J. Med. Robot. 6, 251–255 (2010).
Laydner, H. et al. Robotic retroperitoneal transvaginal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) nephrectomy: feasibility study in a cadaver model. Urology 81, 1232–1237 (2013).
Lerner, L. B. & Tyson, M. D. Holmium laser applications of the prostate. Urol. Clin. North Am. 36, 485–495 (2009).
Humphreys, M. R., Krambeck, A. E., Andrews, P. E., Castle, E. P. & Lingeman, J. E. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgical radical prostatectomy: proof of concept. J. Endourol. 23, 669–675 (2009).
Krambeck, A. E., Humphreys, M. R., Andrews, P. E. & Lingeman, J. E. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: radical prostatectomy in the canine model. J. Endourol. 24, 1493–1496 (2010).
Humphreys, M. R. et al. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial perioperative and pathologic results. Urology 78, 1211–1217 (2011).
Nagele, U. et al. Natural orifice (NOTES) transurethral sutureless radical prostatectomy with thulium laser support: first patient report. World J. Urol. 30, 625–631 (2012).
Chung, D. E. & Te, A. E. New techniques for laser prostatectomy: an update. Ther. Adv. Urol. 1, 85–97 (2009).
Sawyer, M. D., Cherullo, E. E., Elmunzer, B. J., Schomisch, S. & Ponsky, L. E. Pure natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery partial cystectomy: intravesical transurethral and extravesical transgastric techniques in a porcine model. Urology 74, 1049–1053 (2009).
Freeman, L. J. et al. Comparison of pain and postoperative stress in dogs undergoing natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, laparoscopic, and open oophorectomy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 72, 373–380 (2010).
Baron, T. H. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Br. J. Surg. 94, 1–2 (2007).
McGee, M. F. et al. A primer on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: building a new paradigm. Surg. Innov. 13, 86–93 (2006).
Wood, S. G., Panait, L., Duffy, A. J., Bell, R. L. & Roberts, K. E. Complications of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a series of 102 patients. Ann. Surg. 259, 744–749 (2013).
Zorron, R. et al. International multicenter trial on clinical natural orifice surgery—NOTES IMTN study: preliminary results of 362 patients. Surg. Innov. 17, 142–158 (2010).
Rattner, D., Kalloo, A. & ASGE/SAGES Working Group. ASGE/SAGES Working Group on Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery. October 2005. Surg. Endosc. 20, 329–333 (2006).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.D.T. researched the data for the article and M.R.H. reviewed/edited the manuscript before submission. Both authors substantially contributed to discussion of the content and writing the article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tyson, M., Humphreys, M. Urological applications of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Nat Rev Urol 11, 324–332 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2014.96
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2014.96
This article is cited by
-
Novel Technologies in Urologic Surgery: a Rapidly Changing Scenario
Current Urology Reports (2016)
-
The evolution of cancer surgery and future perspectives
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (2015)