Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy for benign indications

Greg J. Marchand MD, FACS, FICS, FACOG , Hollie Ulibarri BS , Amanda Arroyo BS , Madison Blanco BS , Daniela Gonzalez Herrera BS , Brooke Hamilton BS , Kate Ruffley BS , Ali Azadi MD, FACOG, FPMRS
{"title":"Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy for benign indications","authors":"Greg J. Marchand MD, FACS, FICS, FACOG ,&nbsp;Hollie Ulibarri BS ,&nbsp;Amanda Arroyo BS ,&nbsp;Madison Blanco BS ,&nbsp;Daniela Gonzalez Herrera BS ,&nbsp;Brooke Hamilton BS ,&nbsp;Kate Ruffley BS ,&nbsp;Ali Azadi MD, FACOG, FPMRS","doi":"10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>As the second most common surgery performed on women in the United States, hysterectomy techniques are constantly examined for validity and superiority. The vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) has increased in popularity since the first vNOTES hysterectomy was performed in 2012. We sought out to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of hysterectomy by vNOTES compared to conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications.</p></div><div><h3>Data sources</h3><p>We searched Scopus, Medline, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and the Cochrane Library. Our search included all studies from each respective database's inception until September 1, 2023.</p></div><div><h3>Study eligibility criteria</h3><p>We included eligible studies that compare vNOTES hysterectomy versus conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications, and included at least one of our preselected outcomes. The main outcomes were estimated blood loss (mL), operation time (min), length of hospital stay (d), Visual Analogue Scale pain score at Day 1, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications.</p></div><div><h3>Study appraisal and synthesis methods</h3><p>We analyzed data of our continuous outcomes using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the inverse variance analysis method. We assessed the quality of the studies using the ROBINS-I assessment tool.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We found 4 eligible studies to include in our analysis. Surgeon declared estimated blood loss was found to be similar in both groups (MD=−44.70 [−99.97, 10.57]; <em>P</em>=.11). Also, the total length of hospital stay (in days) was found to be comparable in both groups (MD=−0.16 [−1.62, 1.30]; <em>P</em>=.83). We also found no other statistically significant difference between hysterectomy by vNOTES and vaginal hysterectomy in other studied outcomes, including the duration of the operation, the Visual Analogue Scale Pain score after 1 day, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>vNOTES seems to be associated with a nonsignificant lower surgeon declared estimated blood loss. We found no other significant differences in hospital stay, intraoperative, or postoperative outcomes. Further studies may clarify if other differences in safety or efficacy exist.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72141,"journal":{"name":"AJOG global reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577824000492/pdfft?md5=cf7c03d25a26f726059121737c1a7fe5&pid=1-s2.0-S2666577824000492-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOG global reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577824000492","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

As the second most common surgery performed on women in the United States, hysterectomy techniques are constantly examined for validity and superiority. The vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) has increased in popularity since the first vNOTES hysterectomy was performed in 2012. We sought out to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of hysterectomy by vNOTES compared to conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications.

Data sources

We searched Scopus, Medline, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and the Cochrane Library. Our search included all studies from each respective database's inception until September 1, 2023.

Study eligibility criteria

We included eligible studies that compare vNOTES hysterectomy versus conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications, and included at least one of our preselected outcomes. The main outcomes were estimated blood loss (mL), operation time (min), length of hospital stay (d), Visual Analogue Scale pain score at Day 1, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

We analyzed data of our continuous outcomes using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the inverse variance analysis method. We assessed the quality of the studies using the ROBINS-I assessment tool.

Results

We found 4 eligible studies to include in our analysis. Surgeon declared estimated blood loss was found to be similar in both groups (MD=−44.70 [−99.97, 10.57]; P=.11). Also, the total length of hospital stay (in days) was found to be comparable in both groups (MD=−0.16 [−1.62, 1.30]; P=.83). We also found no other statistically significant difference between hysterectomy by vNOTES and vaginal hysterectomy in other studied outcomes, including the duration of the operation, the Visual Analogue Scale Pain score after 1 day, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications.

Conclusion

vNOTES seems to be associated with a nonsignificant lower surgeon declared estimated blood loss. We found no other significant differences in hospital stay, intraoperative, or postoperative outcomes. Further studies may clarify if other differences in safety or efficacy exist.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
针对良性病因的 vNOTES 子宫切除术与阴道子宫切除术的系统性回顾和 Meta 分析
目的 作为美国妇女第二大最常见的手术,子宫切除术技术的有效性和优越性不断受到检验。阴道自然孔腔镜内窥镜手术(vNOTES)自2012年实施首例vNOTES子宫切除术以来越来越受欢迎。我们试图评估vNOTES子宫切除术与传统阴道子宫切除术相比在各种良性适应症方面的安全性和有效性。数据来源我们检索了Scopus、Medline、PubMed、ClinicalTrials.Gov和Cochrane图书馆。研究资格标准我们纳入了符合条件的研究,这些研究比较了vNOTES子宫切除术与传统阴道子宫切除术对各种良性适应症的治疗效果,并纳入了我们预选的至少一项结果。主要结果包括估计失血量(毫升)、手术时间(分钟)、住院时间(天)、第1天视觉模拟量表疼痛评分、术中并发症和术后并发症。连续性结果采用平均差(MD)和95%置信区间(CIs)进行分析,并采用逆方差分析方法。我们使用 ROBINS-I 评估工具对研究质量进行了评估。结果发现,两组外科医生申报的估计失血量相似(MD=-44.70 [-99.97, 10.57];P=.11)。此外,两组的总住院时间(天数)也相当(MD=-0.16 [-1.62, 1.30];P=.83)。我们还发现,vNOTES子宫切除术与阴式子宫切除术在其他研究结果上没有其他统计学意义上的显著差异,包括手术时间、1天后视觉模拟评分表疼痛评分、术中并发症和术后并发症。我们没有发现住院时间、术中或术后结果有其他明显差异。进一步的研究可能会明确安全性或有效性方面是否存在其他差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOG global reports
AJOG global reports Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Perinatology, Pediatrics and Child Health, Urology
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Acute Sheehan syndrome following massive postpartum hemorrhage due to vulvar hematoma The role of the RHOA/ROCK pathway in the regulation of myometrial stages throughout pregnancy Thoughts and opinions about fertility preservation and family building from the transgender community—an interview-based approach Guillain-Barré syndrome in pregnancy: a case report and review of the literature Using machine learning to predict the risk of developing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy using a contemporary nulliparous cohort
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1