Patient and physician perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic appendectomy
AIM:To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery(NOTES)as a potential technique for appendectomy.METHODS:One hundred patients undergoing endoscopy and 100 physicians were given a questionnaire describing in detail the techniques of NOTES and laparoscopic appendectomy....
Saved in:
Published in | World journal of gastroenterology : WJG Vol. 18; no. 15; pp. 1800 - 1805 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited
21.04.2012
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 1007-9327 2219-2840 2219-2840 |
DOI | 10.3748/wjg.v18.i15.1800 |
Cover
Abstract | AIM:To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery(NOTES)as a potential technique for appendectomy.METHODS:One hundred patients undergoing endoscopy and 100 physicians were given a questionnaire describing in detail the techniques of NOTES and laparoscopic appendectomy.They were asked about the reasons for their preference,choice of orifice,and extent of complication risk they were willing to accept.RESULTS:Fifty patients(50%)and only 21 physicians(21%)preferred NOTES(P0.001).Patients had previously heard of NOTES less frequently(7%vs73%,P0.001)and had undergone endoscopy more frequently(88%vs 36%,P0.001)than physicians.Absence of hernia was the most common reason for NOTES preference in physicians(80%vs 44%,P= 0.003),whereas reduced pain was the most common reason in patients(66%vs 52%).Physicians were more likely to refuse NOTES as a novel and unsure technique(P0.001)and having an increased risk of infection(P0.001).The preferred access site in both groups was colon followed by stomach,with vagina being rarely preferred.In multivariable modeling,those with high-school education[odds ratio(OR):2.68,95% confidence interval(CI):1.23-5.83]and prior colonoscopy(OR:2.10,95%CI:1.05-4.19)were more likely to prefer NOTES over laparoscopic appendectomy.There was a steep decline in NOTES preference with increased rate of procedural complications.Male patients were more likely to consent to their wives vaginal NOTES appendectomy than male physicians(P=0.02).CONCLUSION:The preference of NOTES for appendectomy was greater in patients than physicians and was related to reduced pain and absence of hernia rather than lack of scarring. |
---|---|
AbstractList | AIM:To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery(NOTES)as a potential technique for appendectomy.METHODS:One hundred patients undergoing endoscopy and 100 physicians were given a questionnaire describing in detail the techniques of NOTES and laparoscopic appendectomy.They were asked about the reasons for their preference,choice of orifice,and extent of complication risk they were willing to accept.RESULTS:Fifty patients(50%)and only 21 physicians(21%)preferred NOTES(P0.001).Patients had previously heard of NOTES less frequently(7%vs73%,P0.001)and had undergone endoscopy more frequently(88%vs 36%,P0.001)than physicians.Absence of hernia was the most common reason for NOTES preference in physicians(80%vs 44%,P= 0.003),whereas reduced pain was the most common reason in patients(66%vs 52%).Physicians were more likely to refuse NOTES as a novel and unsure technique(P0.001)and having an increased risk of infection(P0.001).The preferred access site in both groups was colon followed by stomach,with vagina being rarely preferred.In multivariable modeling,those with high-school education[odds ratio(OR):2.68,95% confidence interval(CI):1.23-5.83]and prior colonoscopy(OR:2.10,95%CI:1.05-4.19)were more likely to prefer NOTES over laparoscopic appendectomy.There was a steep decline in NOTES preference with increased rate of procedural complications.Male patients were more likely to consent to their wives vaginal NOTES appendectomy than male physicians(P=0.02).CONCLUSION:The preference of NOTES for appendectomy was greater in patients than physicians and was related to reduced pain and absence of hernia rather than lack of scarring. To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) as a potential technique for appendectomy.AIMTo investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) as a potential technique for appendectomy.One hundred patients undergoing endoscopy and 100 physicians were given a questionnaire describing in detail the techniques of NOTES and laparoscopic appendectomy. They were asked about the reasons for their preference, choice of orifice, and extent of complication risk they were willing to accept.METHODSOne hundred patients undergoing endoscopy and 100 physicians were given a questionnaire describing in detail the techniques of NOTES and laparoscopic appendectomy. They were asked about the reasons for their preference, choice of orifice, and extent of complication risk they were willing to accept.Fifty patients (50%) and only 21 physicians (21%) preferred NOTES (P < 0.001). Patients had previously heard of NOTES less frequently (7% vs 73%, P < 0.001) and had undergone endoscopy more frequently (88% vs 36%, P < 0.001) than physicians. Absence of hernia was the most common reason for NOTES preference in physicians (80% vs 44%, P = 0.003), whereas reduced pain was the most common reason in patients (66% vs 52%). Physicians were more likely to refuse NOTES as a novel and unsure technique (P < 0.001) and having an increased risk of infection (P < 0.001). The preferred access site in both groups was colon followed by stomach, with vagina being rarely preferred. In multivariable modeling, those with high-school education [odds ratio (OR): 2.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23-5.83] and prior colonoscopy (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.05-4.19) were more likely to prefer NOTES over laparoscopic appendectomy. There was a steep decline in NOTES preference with increased rate of procedural complications. Male patients were more likely to consent to their wives vaginal NOTES appendectomy than male physicians (P = 0.02).RESULTSFifty patients (50%) and only 21 physicians (21%) preferred NOTES (P < 0.001). Patients had previously heard of NOTES less frequently (7% vs 73%, P < 0.001) and had undergone endoscopy more frequently (88% vs 36%, P < 0.001) than physicians. Absence of hernia was the most common reason for NOTES preference in physicians (80% vs 44%, P = 0.003), whereas reduced pain was the most common reason in patients (66% vs 52%). Physicians were more likely to refuse NOTES as a novel and unsure technique (P < 0.001) and having an increased risk of infection (P < 0.001). The preferred access site in both groups was colon followed by stomach, with vagina being rarely preferred. In multivariable modeling, those with high-school education [odds ratio (OR): 2.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23-5.83] and prior colonoscopy (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.05-4.19) were more likely to prefer NOTES over laparoscopic appendectomy. There was a steep decline in NOTES preference with increased rate of procedural complications. Male patients were more likely to consent to their wives vaginal NOTES appendectomy than male physicians (P = 0.02).The preference of NOTES for appendectomy was greater in patients than physicians and was related to reduced pain and absence of hernia rather than lack of scarring.CONCLUSIONThe preference of NOTES for appendectomy was greater in patients than physicians and was related to reduced pain and absence of hernia rather than lack of scarring. AIM: To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) as a potential technique for appendectomy. METHODS: One hundred patients undergoing endoscopy and 100 physicians were given a questionnaire describing in detail the techniques of NOTES and laparoscopic appendectomy. They were asked about the reasons for their preference, choice of orifice, and extent of complication risk they were willing to accept. RESULTS: Fifty patients (50%) and only 21 physicians (21%) preferred NOTES ( P < 0.001). Patients had previously heard of NOTES less frequently (7% vs 73%, P < 0.001) and had undergone endoscopy more frequently (88% vs 36%, P < 0.001) than physicians. Absence of hernia was the most common reason for NOTES preference in physicians (80% vs 44%, P = 0.003), whereas reduced pain was the most common reason in patients (66% vs 52%). Physicians were more likely to refuse NOTES as a novel and unsure technique ( P < 0.001) and having an increased risk of infection ( P < 0.001). The preferred access site in both groups was colon followed by stomach, with vagina being rarely preferred. In multivariable modeling, those with high-school education [odds ratio (OR): 2.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23-5.83] and prior colonoscopy (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.05-4.19) were more likely to prefer NOTES over laparoscopic appendectomy. There was a steep decline in NOTES preference with increased rate of procedural complications. Male patients were more likely to consent to their wives vaginal NOTES appendectomy than male physicians ( P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The preference of NOTES for appendectomy was greater in patients than physicians and was related to reduced pain and absence of hernia rather than lack of scarring. To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) as a potential technique for appendectomy. One hundred patients undergoing endoscopy and 100 physicians were given a questionnaire describing in detail the techniques of NOTES and laparoscopic appendectomy. They were asked about the reasons for their preference, choice of orifice, and extent of complication risk they were willing to accept. Fifty patients (50%) and only 21 physicians (21%) preferred NOTES (P < 0.001). Patients had previously heard of NOTES less frequently (7% vs 73%, P < 0.001) and had undergone endoscopy more frequently (88% vs 36%, P < 0.001) than physicians. Absence of hernia was the most common reason for NOTES preference in physicians (80% vs 44%, P = 0.003), whereas reduced pain was the most common reason in patients (66% vs 52%). Physicians were more likely to refuse NOTES as a novel and unsure technique (P < 0.001) and having an increased risk of infection (P < 0.001). The preferred access site in both groups was colon followed by stomach, with vagina being rarely preferred. In multivariable modeling, those with high-school education [odds ratio (OR): 2.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23-5.83] and prior colonoscopy (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.05-4.19) were more likely to prefer NOTES over laparoscopic appendectomy. There was a steep decline in NOTES preference with increased rate of procedural complications. Male patients were more likely to consent to their wives vaginal NOTES appendectomy than male physicians (P = 0.02). The preference of NOTES for appendectomy was greater in patients than physicians and was related to reduced pain and absence of hernia rather than lack of scarring. |
Author | Tomas Hucl Adela Saglova Marek Benes Matej Kocik Martin Oliverius Zdenek Valenta Julius Spicak |
AuthorAffiliation | Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic Department of Transplantation Surgery, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic Department of Medical Informatics, Institute of Computer Science AS CR, 18207 Prague, Czech Republic |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Tomas surname: Hucl fullname: Hucl, Tomas |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22553405$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNp9UU1v1DAQtVAR3RbunFC4cclie5KN94KEKr6kSnAAiZs1Hju7rhI7tZOi_fd41W0FHDhZY7-P8XsX7CzE4Bh7Kfgauka9_XWzW98JtfaiXQvF-RO2klJsa6kafsZWgvOu3oLsztlFzjecS4BWPmPnUrYtNLxdsZ_fcPYuzBUGW037Q_bkMVSTS-Sm2cdQxb4KOC8Jhyom33ty1Zww5GEZfSiXLtiYKU6eKpymMjma43h4zp72OGT34nResh8fP3y_-lxff_305er9dU2NlHMtuTWASGBQEpLojOuh3ShngXNrjZEOnUBFFiQBCWUMtj0ZqzZlNA1csnf3utNiRmep_KWsqqfkR0wHHdHrv1-C3-tdvNMAIOX2KPDmJJDi7eLyrEefyQ0DBheXrAUXomS7FVCgr_70ejR5iLMANvcASjHn5HpNfsZjjMXaD0VLH3vTpTddetOlN33srRD5P8QH7f9QXp8o-xh2tz7sHjmN6BRsOgm_Ab5zrIM |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1007_s10620_013_2637_6 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11605_013_2277_3 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10405_012_0656_1 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_013_3409_2 crossref_primary_10_1155_2016_7320275 crossref_primary_10_1177_1553350615598621 crossref_primary_10_2147_IJWH_S382457 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_014_3523_9 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_014_3769_2 crossref_primary_10_1089_lap_2013_0336 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gie_2012_12_017 crossref_primary_10_1111_den_12192 crossref_primary_10_1097_SLE_0b013e31828b8b7b |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | 2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved. 2012 |
Copyright_xml | – notice: 2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved. 2012 |
DBID | 2RA 92L CQIGP W91 ~WA AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 5PM |
DOI | 10.3748/wjg.v18.i15.1800 |
DatabaseName | 维普期刊资源整合服务平台 中文科技期刊数据库-CALIS站点 中文科技期刊数据库-7.0平台 中文科技期刊数据库-医药卫生 中文科技期刊数据库- 镜像站点 CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
DocumentTitleAlternate | Patient and physician perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic appendectomy |
EISSN | 2219-2840 |
EndPage | 1805 |
ExternalDocumentID | PMC3332294 22553405 10_3748_wjg_v18_i15_1800 41783672 |
Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | --- 123 29R 2B. 2C~ 2RA 2WC 36B 53G 5VR 8WL 92F 92I 92L 93N 93R AAKDD ACGFO AENEX AFUIB ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS CCEZO CHBEP CIEJG CQIGP CS3 CW9 DIK DU5 E3Z EBS EJD EMB F5P FA0 FRP GX1 HYE M~E OK1 P2P RNS RPM SV3 TCJ TGQ TR2 W91 WFFXF XSB ~WA AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 5PM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-20db3aac3ba2cac17bef3568ed300ddbb2eae1a8cd32c3c18bba5fcbd86c3cb43 |
ISSN | 1007-9327 2219-2840 |
IngestDate | Thu Aug 21 17:56:44 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 08:31:49 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 03 06:58:34 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:13:14 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 03:21:55 EDT 2025 Wed Feb 14 10:46:48 EST 2024 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | false |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 15 |
Keywords | Appendectomy Laparoscopy Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery Physician perception Patient perception |
Language | English |
LinkModel | OpenURL |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c422t-20db3aac3ba2cac17bef3568ed300ddbb2eae1a8cd32c3c18bba5fcbd86c3cb43 |
Notes | AIM:To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery(NOTES)as a potential technique for appendectomy.METHODS:One hundred patients undergoing endoscopy and 100 physicians were given a questionnaire describing in detail the techniques of NOTES and laparoscopic appendectomy.They were asked about the reasons for their preference,choice of orifice,and extent of complication risk they were willing to accept.RESULTS:Fifty patients(50%)and only 21 physicians(21%)preferred NOTES(P0.001).Patients had previously heard of NOTES less frequently(7%vs73%,P0.001)and had undergone endoscopy more frequently(88%vs 36%,P0.001)than physicians.Absence of hernia was the most common reason for NOTES preference in physicians(80%vs 44%,P= 0.003),whereas reduced pain was the most common reason in patients(66%vs 52%).Physicians were more likely to refuse NOTES as a novel and unsure technique(P0.001)and having an increased risk of infection(P0.001).The preferred access site in both groups was colon followed by stomach,with vagina being rarely preferred.In multivariable modeling,those with high-school education[odds ratio(OR):2.68,95% confidence interval(CI):1.23-5.83]and prior colonoscopy(OR:2.10,95%CI:1.05-4.19)were more likely to prefer NOTES over laparoscopic appendectomy.There was a steep decline in NOTES preference with increased rate of procedural complications.Male patients were more likely to consent to their wives vaginal NOTES appendectomy than male physicians(P=0.02).CONCLUSION:The preference of NOTES for appendectomy was greater in patients than physicians and was related to reduced pain and absence of hernia rather than lack of scarring. Tomas Hucl,Adela Saglova,Marek Benes,Julius Spicak,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology,Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine,14021 Prague,Czech Republic Matej Kocik,Martin Oliverius,Department of Transplantation Surgery,Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine,14021 Prague,Czech Republic Zdenek Valenta,Department of Medical Informatics,Institute of Computer Science AS CR,18207 Prague,Czech Republic 14-1219/R Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery; Patient perception; Physician perception; Appendectomy; Laparoscopy ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 Telephone: +420-261-362600 Fax: +420-261-362615 Author contributions: Hucl T and Saglova A designed the research; Hucl T, Saglova A, Benes M, Kocik M, Oliverius M and Valenta Z performed the research; Hucl T and Saglova A analyzed the data; Hucl T wrote the paper; Valenta Z and Spicak J revised the paper critically for important intellectual content. Correspondence to: Tomas Hucl, MD, PhD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Videnska 9, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic. tomas.hucl@ikem.cz |
OpenAccessLink | https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v18/i15/1800.htm |
PMID | 22553405 |
PQID | 1011180913 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 6 |
ParticipantIDs | pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3332294 proquest_miscellaneous_1011180913 pubmed_primary_22553405 crossref_citationtrail_10_3748_wjg_v18_i15_1800 crossref_primary_10_3748_wjg_v18_i15_1800 chongqing_primary_41783672 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2012-04-21 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2012-04-21 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 04 year: 2012 text: 2012-04-21 day: 21 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | United States |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
PublicationTitle | World journal of gastroenterology : WJG |
PublicationTitleAlternate | World Journal of Gastroenterology |
PublicationYear | 2012 |
Publisher | Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited |
Publisher_xml | – name: Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited |
References | 15229442 - Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Jul;60(1):114-7 9591000 - Surgery. 1998 May;123(5):485-95 19343434 - Surg Endosc. 2009 Jul;23(7):1519-25 17875836 - Arch Surg. 2007 Sep;142(9):823-6; discussion 826-7 11866270 - Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Feb;97(2):334-40 18027043 - Surg Endosc. 2008 Feb;22(2):542-7 21483624 - World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Apr 7;17(13):1655-65 20170912 - Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Apr;71(4):806-11 19300273 - Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Oct;21(10):1110-8 18609451 - Endoscopy. 2008 Jul;40(7):576-80 19488822 - J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Aug;13(8):1401-10 21229472 - Endoscopy. 2011 Feb;43(2):140-3 20224999 - Surg Endosc. 2010 Oct;24(10):2424-31 19057953 - Surg Endosc. 2009 Aug;23(8):1770-4 18355816 - Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 May;67(6):854-60 21181204 - Surg Endosc. 2011 Jun;25(6):1822-6 |
References_xml | – reference: 21483624 - World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Apr 7;17(13):1655-65 – reference: 18609451 - Endoscopy. 2008 Jul;40(7):576-80 – reference: 19343434 - Surg Endosc. 2009 Jul;23(7):1519-25 – reference: 20170912 - Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Apr;71(4):806-11 – reference: 15229442 - Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Jul;60(1):114-7 – reference: 21229472 - Endoscopy. 2011 Feb;43(2):140-3 – reference: 21181204 - Surg Endosc. 2011 Jun;25(6):1822-6 – reference: 17875836 - Arch Surg. 2007 Sep;142(9):823-6; discussion 826-7 – reference: 19300273 - Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Oct;21(10):1110-8 – reference: 18027043 - Surg Endosc. 2008 Feb;22(2):542-7 – reference: 9591000 - Surgery. 1998 May;123(5):485-95 – reference: 20224999 - Surg Endosc. 2010 Oct;24(10):2424-31 – reference: 19057953 - Surg Endosc. 2009 Aug;23(8):1770-4 – reference: 11866270 - Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Feb;97(2):334-40 – reference: 19488822 - J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Aug;13(8):1401-10 – reference: 18355816 - Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 May;67(6):854-60 |
SSID | ssj0023352 |
Score | 2.1116304 |
Snippet | AIM:To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery(NOTES)as a potential technique for appendectomy.METHODS:One hundred patients... To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) as a potential technique for appendectomy. One hundred patients undergoing... To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) as a potential technique for appendectomy.AIMTo investigate perception of... AIM: To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) as a potential technique for appendectomy. METHODS: One hundred... |
SourceID | pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref chongqing |
SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
StartPage | 1800 |
SubjectTerms | Adult Appendectomy - methods Brief Female Humans Laparoscopy Male Middle Aged Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods Patient Preference Perception Surveys and Questionnaires 内镜 切除术 医生 多变量模型 胃镜检查 自然 调查问卷 风险程度 |
Title | Patient and physician perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic appendectomy |
URI | http://lib.cqvip.com/qk/84123X/201215/41783672.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22553405 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1011180913 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC3332294 |
Volume | 18 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Lb9NAEF6FcuGCinilFLRIXDjYtb1-5QgVUBUF9ZCK3Kx92W0pdkicIvGj-I3MeNePpEGCXqzYsdeyv8_j2fHMN4S8EbGXMyW1w1MVOaFMlTPRUeJ4gZ6gh5DEjdjz9Et8ch6ezqP5aPR7kLW0roUrf-2sK7kLqrANcMUq2f9AthsUNsBvwBeWgDAs_wnjMyOKaor92xAFKhHbXJUmS4MbZY1qiUlBGntClCuwSE03LF2qCutSULR10XTDlXVb42A9VpNtMxCYKPiqXlYo5bk0-k0YVPh6-qkniGzCyrMu8wgDOLy4rm5MDBd1KbsogLatAqZ8qbuioc_AmG9ma62vhoEJzPAInaAPTLzH9tHYGLW4FVEDW-easMNWDRembDjgUSa77fO6rf201tZPPW_w5obVaNdbARV2AMqfV4V746fupR-57ZEDkiy-NywB-xax0Ay0pcR9Nj1mDAzgJLxH7gcJ-GptdMhO8LF-rfm6bq_CfBbH0x9tnxxFqO2ZUNXjoiqLH3B_Nr2jW1Oe7czdgSs02ycP7RyGvjOEfERGunxM5paMFMhIOzLSnoy0yqklI7VkpEMy0p6MdEjGJ-T844fZ8Ylj23Y4MgyCGp5QJRjnkgkeSC79ROicRXGqFfM8pYQINNc-T6VigWTST4XgUS6FSmNYFSF7SvbKqtTPCYXJieRpik4phzcNzM55rP2JglXu56E3JgfdrcsWRp4lC32sTEqCMTlq72UmreA99l25zmDii6BkAEoGoGQASoagjMnb7oh2tL_v-7qFJwOLjJ_ZeKmr9QqTJlFXceKzMXlm4OpGazEfk2QDyG4HVHvf_Ke8vGhU3y31Du585AvyoH9MD8levVzrl-BR1-JVQ-M_FfbUrg |
linkProvider | National Library of Medicine |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Patient+and+physician+perception+of+natural+orifice+transluminal+endoscopic+appendectomy&rft.jtitle=World+journal+of+gastroenterology+%3A+WJG&rft.au=Hucl%2C+Tomas&rft.au=Saglova%2C+Adela&rft.au=Benes%2C+Marek&rft.au=Kocik%2C+Matej&rft.date=2012-04-21&rft.pub=Baishideng+Publishing+Group+Co.%2C+Limited&rft.issn=1007-9327&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=15&rft.spage=1800&rft.epage=1805&rft_id=info:doi/10.3748%2Fwjg.v18.i15.1800&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F22553405&rft.externalDocID=PMC3332294 |
thumbnail_s | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/image/custom?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.cqvip.com%2Fvip1000%2Fqk%2F84123X%2F84123X.jpg |