Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)

Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment

Riccardo Autorino, Rachid Yakoubi, Wesley White, Matthew Gettman, Marco De Sio, Carmelo Quattrone, Carmine Di Palma, Alessandro Izzo, Jeorge Correia-Pinto, Jihad H. Kaouk, Estevão Lima

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

26 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)11-16
Number of pages6
JournalBJU International
Volume111
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2013

Fingerprint

Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery
Bibliometrics
Publications
Cholecystectomy
Laparoscopy
Randomized Controlled Trials

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology

Cite this

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) : Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment. / Autorino, Riccardo; Yakoubi, Rachid; White, Wesley; Gettman, Matthew; De Sio, Marco; Quattrone, Carmelo; Di Palma, Carmine; Izzo, Alessandro; Correia-Pinto, Jeorge; Kaouk, Jihad H.; Lima, Estevão.

In: BJU International, Vol. 111, No. 1, 01.01.2013, p. 11-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Autorino, R, Yakoubi, R, White, W, Gettman, M, De Sio, M, Quattrone, C, Di Palma, C, Izzo, A, Correia-Pinto, J, Kaouk, JH & Lima, E 2013, 'Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment', BJU International, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 11-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11494.x
Autorino, Riccardo ; Yakoubi, Rachid ; White, Wesley ; Gettman, Matthew ; De Sio, Marco ; Quattrone, Carmelo ; Di Palma, Carmine ; Izzo, Alessandro ; Correia-Pinto, Jeorge ; Kaouk, Jihad H. ; Lima, Estevão. / Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) : Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment. In: BJU International. 2013 ; Vol. 111, No. 1. pp. 11-16.
@article{587a50be381b4330b683f64df80a974d,
title = "Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment",
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{\circledR} 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.",
author = "Riccardo Autorino and Rachid Yakoubi and Wesley White and Matthew Gettman and {De Sio}, Marco and Carmelo Quattrone and {Di Palma}, Carmine and Alessandro Izzo and Jeorge Correia-Pinto and Kaouk, {Jihad H.} and Estev{\~a}o Lima",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11494.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "111",
pages = "11--16",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)

T2 - Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment

AU - Autorino, Riccardo

AU - Yakoubi, Rachid

AU - White, Wesley

AU - Gettman, Matthew

AU - De Sio, Marco

AU - Quattrone, Carmelo

AU - Di Palma, Carmine

AU - Izzo, Alessandro

AU - Correia-Pinto, Jeorge

AU - Kaouk, Jihad H.

AU - Lima, Estevão

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871539162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871539162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11494.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11494.x

M3 - Review article

VL - 111

SP - 11

EP - 16

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

IS - 1

ER -