Hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: an experimental surgical study in human cadavers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The advantages of a hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery approach to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (hNOTES-RYGBP) might include: easier access to the peritoneal cavity, reduced number of ports and related complications, improved cosmesis, and others. However, currently available conventional endoscopic and laparoscopic instruments might be unsuitable for complex surgical procedures using transluminal access. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and limitations of a NOTES RYGBP. METHODS: hNOTES-RYGBP was performed in human cadavers. Pouch creation was achieved by needle-knife dissection using a transvaginal, flexible scope. Articulating linear staplers were placed transumbilically to transect the stomach. Measurements of the small bowel were accomplished intraluminally or with flexible and rigid graspers. New methods were tested to create the gastro-jejunal anastomosis. A linear laparoscopic stapler was used to form the jejuno-jejunal anastomosis. RESULTS: Stapler manipulation and anvil docking, bowel manipulation and measurement, and tissue dissection presented the main obstacles for hNOTES-RYGBP. Conventional instruments were too short for some transvaginal manipulations. The time to complete the procedure was 6 - 9 hours. It was feasible to perform a complete hNOTES-RYGBP in four out of seven cadavers. Two cadavers were unsuitable due to anatomical abnormalities or advanced decay. One procedure was terminated before completion because of time constraints. Combinations of flexible and rigid visualization and manipulation were helpful, especially for dissection and gastric pouch creation. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors made hNOTES-RYGBP very challenging and time-consuming. A lack of proper instrumentation resulting in insufficient tissue traction, countertraction, and instrument manipulation complicated several steps during the procedure. A combination of flexible with rigid endoscopic techniques offers specific advantages for components of this type of surgery. Changes in instrument design are required to improve more complex endosurgical procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".