Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1822/33730

TitleNatural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): where are we going? A bibliometric assessment
Author(s)Autorino, Riccardo
Yakoubi, Rachid
White, Wesley M.
Gettman, Matthew
De Sio, Marco
Quattrone, Carmelo
Di Palma, Carmine
Izzo, Alessandro
Pinto, Jorge Correia
Kaouk, Jihad H.
Lima, Estêvão Augusto Rodrigues de
KeywordsNatural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery
NOTES
Trends
Urology
Issue date2013
PublisherJohn Wiley and Sons
JournalBJU International
CitationAutorino, R., Yakoubi, R., White, W. M., Gettman, M., De Sio, M., Quattrone, C., . . . Lima, E. (2013). Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment. BJU International, 111(1), 11-16.
Abstract(s)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.
TypeArticle
DescriptionNo documento o autor Jorge Correia Pinto aparece, por lapso, como Jeorge Correia Pinto
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/1822/33730
DOI10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11494.x
ISSN1464-4096
Publisher versionhttp://www.bjuinternational.com
Peer-Reviewedyes
AccessRestricted access (UMinho)
Appears in Collections:ICVS - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais com Referee

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
autorino r_bju 2013.pdf
  Restricted access
181,51 kBAdobe PDFView/Open    Request a copy!

Partilhe no FacebookPartilhe no TwitterPartilhe no DeliciousPartilhe no LinkedInPartilhe no DiggAdicionar ao Google BookmarksPartilhe no MySpacePartilhe no Orkut
Exporte no formato BibTex mendeley Exporte no formato Endnote Adicione ao seu ORCID