4.5 Review

Update on the natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for gallbladder preserving gallstones therapy: A review

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 101, Issue 46, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031810

Keywords

cholecystolithotomy; flexible endoscopy; gallbladder preservation; gallstones; minimally invasive surgery; natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cholecystectomy is the standard treatment for gallstone management, but the technique of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for gallstone removal is evolving, with some experts advocating for preserving gallbladder function to avoid postoperative complications.
Cholecystectomy remains the gold standard for the management of symptomatic gallstones. Minimally invasive laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been the treatment of choice for the past 3 decades. However, the technique of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery cholecystolithotomy is evolving, with some experts advocating gallbladder stone removal without gallbladder excision in order to preserve gallbladder function and eliminate post-cholecystectomy syndromes, including complications of the surgical incision, bile duct injury, functional gastrointestinal, and psychological conditions, and possibly an increase in colon cancer. In addition, transluminal endoscopic cholecystolithotomy is an option for elderly patients who are not suitable candidates for open surgery and those who desire scar-free minimally invasive surgery with organ preservation. This article summarizes the established pure natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery gallbladder preserving gallstone removal techniques and highlights the pros and cons of different popular available endoscopic approaches to gallstone therapy and how flexible endoscopic surgery via the natural orifice is compared to the well-established cholecystectomy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available