Publication
Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): where are we going? A bibliometric assessment.
| dc.contributor.author | Autorino, R | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yakoubi, R | |
| dc.contributor.author | White, WM | |
| dc.contributor.author | Gettman, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | De Sio, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Quattrone, C | |
| dc.contributor.author | Di Palma, C | |
| dc.contributor.author | Izzo, A | |
| dc.contributor.author | Correia-Pinto, J | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kaouk, JH | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lima, E | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-06-21T11:21:30Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2013-06-21T11:21:30Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The aim of this study was to analyse natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)-related publications over the last 5 years. A systematic literature search was done to retrieve publications related to NOTES from 2006 to 2011. The following variables were recorded: year of publication; article type; study design; setting; Journal Citation Reports® journal category; authors area of surgical speciality; geographic area of origin; surgical procedure; NOTES technique; NOTES access route; number of clinical cases. A time-trend analysis was performed by comparing early (2006-2008) and late (2009-2011) study periods. Overall, 644 publications were included in the analysis and most papers were found in general surgery journals (50.9%). Studies were most frequently clinical series (43.9%) and animal experimental (48%), with the articles focusing primarily on cholecystectomy, access creation and closure, and peritoneoscopy. Pure NOTES techniques were performed in most of the published reports (85%) with the remaining cases being hybrid NOTES (7.4%) and NOTES-assisted procedures (6.1%). The access routes included transgastric (52.5%), transcolonic (12.3%), transvesical (12.5%), transvaginal (10.5%), and combined (12.3%). From the early to the late period, there was a significant increase in the number of randomised controlled trials (5.6% vs 7.2%) or non-randomised but comparative studies (5.6% vs 22.9%) (P < 0.001) and there was also a significant increase in the number of colorectal procedures and nephrectomies (P = 0.002). Pure NOTES remained the most studied approach over the years but with increased investigation in the field of NOTES-assisted techniques (P = 0.001). There was also a significant increase in the adoption of transvesical access (7% vs 15.6%) (P = 0.007). NOTES is in a developmental stage and much work is still needed to refine techniques, verify safety and document efficacy. Since the first description of the concept of NOTES, >2000 clinical cases, irrespective of specialty, have been reported. NOTES remains a field of intense clinical and experimental research in various surgical specialities | por |
| dc.identifier.citation | BJU Int. 2013;111(1):11-6. | por |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.23/439 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | por |
| dc.peerreviewed | yes | por |
| dc.publisher | Elsevier | por |
| dc.subject | Cirurgia Endoscópica Transluminal por Orifícios Naturais | por |
| dc.title | Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): where are we going? A bibliometric assessment. | por |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| rcaap.rights | openAccess | por |
| rcaap.type | article | por |