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....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inWorld journal of gastroenterology : WJG Vol. 18; no. 15; pp. 1800 - 1805
Main Author Hucl, Tomas
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited 21.04.2012
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1007-9327
2219-2840
2219-2840
DOI10.3748/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