A Case Control Study of vNOTES Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Salpingectomy for Ectopic Pregnancy

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of minimally invasive gynecology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2024.08.016
Wai Yoong MD, FRCOG , Joachim Ho iBSc (Hons) , Vanessa Mathieu BSc , Sarah Wylie MRCOG , Wasim Lodhi FRCOG , Schahrazed Rouabhi MRCOG
{"title":"A Case Control Study of vNOTES Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Salpingectomy for Ectopic Pregnancy","authors":"Wai Yoong MD, FRCOG ,&nbsp;Joachim Ho iBSc (Hons) ,&nbsp;Vanessa Mathieu BSc ,&nbsp;Sarah Wylie MRCOG ,&nbsp;Wasim Lodhi FRCOG ,&nbsp;Schahrazed Rouabhi MRCOG","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.08.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study Objective</h3><div>While the laparoscopic approach is the surgical treatment of choice for ectopic pregnancy, vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) is emerging as an alternative route with its good optical visibility and avoidance of abdominal incisions. The authors compare demographics and outcome data of vNOTES vs conventional laparoscopic (CL) salpingectomy for the surgical management of ectopic pregnancy.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Case-control study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>A London University hospital.</div></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><div>Women with ectopic pregnancy unsuitable for medical management who underwent surgical management.</div></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><div>Twenty-five cases of vNOTES vs 25 CL salpingectomy.</div></div><div><h3>Measurements and Main Results</h3><div>The mean patient age (29.7 ± 53 vs 31.4 ± 6.7 days), parity (1.2 ± 1.1 vs 1.6 ± 2.1), body mass index (26.7 ± 5.3 vs 27.2 ± 5.4 kg/m<sup>3</sup>), gestation age (8.44 ± 2.1 vs 7.3 ± 1.7 weeks) and β human chorionic gonadotrophin (βhCG) levels (3725.4 ± 3674.8 vs 4376.5 ± 6493.4 IU/liter) were comparable (p &gt;.05, <em>t</em> test) between patients having vNOTES vs CL salpingectomy. While estimated blood loss was similar (218.2 ± 491.7 vs 173.5 ± 138.7 mL) (p &gt;.001), vNOTES patients had a statistically shorter duration of surgery (35.8 ± 14.4 vs 75.8 ± 19.7 mins) (p &lt;.001, <em>t</em> test) and length of stay (median: 11.5 vs 19.7 hours) (U = 72, p &lt;.05, Mann-Whitney U test). Less patients in the vNOTES group required postoperative opioids (9% vs 25%), and the median visual analog score (/10) for pain at 24 hours was significantly lower (2.0 vs 4.0) (U = 75, p &lt;.05, Mann-Whitney U test). Patients from the vNOTES group were able to return to normal daily activity 11.3 days quicker (5.8 ± 4.3 vs 17.1 ± 8.2 days) (p &lt;.05, <em>t</em> test). vNOTES cases cost approximately USD150 more due to the price of the commercial kits but this is offset by reduced intraoperative time, length of stay and need for postprocedure analgesia.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Patients undergoing vNOTES have shorter intraoperative times and length of stays, less postoperative pain, and more rapid recovery, which help mitigate higher costs incurred by commercial kits. While the vNOTES approach for ectopic pregnancy appears safe and efficacious, more robust data from larger randomized studies are needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":"32 1","pages":"Pages 15-21"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465024003613","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study Objective

While the laparoscopic approach is the surgical treatment of choice for ectopic pregnancy, vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) is emerging as an alternative route with its good optical visibility and avoidance of abdominal incisions. The authors compare demographics and outcome data of vNOTES vs conventional laparoscopic (CL) salpingectomy for the surgical management of ectopic pregnancy.

Design

Case-control study.

Setting

A London University hospital.

Patients

Women with ectopic pregnancy unsuitable for medical management who underwent surgical management.

Intervention

Twenty-five cases of vNOTES vs 25 CL salpingectomy.

Measurements and Main Results

The mean patient age (29.7 ± 53 vs 31.4 ± 6.7 days), parity (1.2 ± 1.1 vs 1.6 ± 2.1), body mass index (26.7 ± 5.3 vs 27.2 ± 5.4 kg/m3), gestation age (8.44 ± 2.1 vs 7.3 ± 1.7 weeks) and β human chorionic gonadotrophin (βhCG) levels (3725.4 ± 3674.8 vs 4376.5 ± 6493.4 IU/liter) were comparable (p >.05, t test) between patients having vNOTES vs CL salpingectomy. While estimated blood loss was similar (218.2 ± 491.7 vs 173.5 ± 138.7 mL) (p >.001), vNOTES patients had a statistically shorter duration of surgery (35.8 ± 14.4 vs 75.8 ± 19.7 mins) (p <.001, t test) and length of stay (median: 11.5 vs 19.7 hours) (U = 72, p <.05, Mann-Whitney U test). Less patients in the vNOTES group required postoperative opioids (9% vs 25%), and the median visual analog score (/10) for pain at 24 hours was significantly lower (2.0 vs 4.0) (U = 75, p <.05, Mann-Whitney U test). Patients from the vNOTES group were able to return to normal daily activity 11.3 days quicker (5.8 ± 4.3 vs 17.1 ± 8.2 days) (p <.05, t test). vNOTES cases cost approximately USD150 more due to the price of the commercial kits but this is offset by reduced intraoperative time, length of stay and need for postprocedure analgesia.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing vNOTES have shorter intraoperative times and length of stays, less postoperative pain, and more rapid recovery, which help mitigate higher costs incurred by commercial kits. While the vNOTES approach for ectopic pregnancy appears safe and efficacious, more robust data from larger randomized studies are needed.
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
vNOTES与传统腹腔镜输卵管切除术治疗宫外孕的病例对照研究。
研究目的:虽然腹腔镜方法是治疗宫外孕的首选手术方法,但vNOTES凭借其良好的光学可视性和避免腹部切口的优势,正在成为一种替代方法。作者比较了 vNOTES 与传统腹腔镜输卵管切除术在异位妊娠手术治疗中的人口统计学和结果数据:设计:病例对照研究患者:患有宫外孕且不适合接受腹腔镜手术的女性:测量和主要结果:患者平均年龄(29.7±53 天 vs 31.4±6.7 天)、胎次(1.2±1.1 vs 1.6±2.1)、体重指数(26.7±5.3 vs 27.2±5.4kg/m3)、孕龄(8.44±2.1 vs 7.3±1.7周)和βhCG水平(3725.4±3674.8 vs 4376.5±6493.4IU/升)在vNOTES与传统腹腔镜输卵管切除术患者之间具有可比性(p>0.05,t检验)。虽然估计失血量相似(218.2±491.7 vs 173.5±138.7毫升)(P>0.001),但vNOTES患者的手术时间(35.8±14.4 vs 75.8±19.7分钟)在统计学上更短(P结论:接受vNOTES治疗的患者术中时间和住院时间更短,术后疼痛更轻,恢复更快,这有助于降低商业套件所产生的较高成本。虽然vNOTES方法治疗宫外孕似乎安全有效,但还需要更大规模的随机研究提供更可靠的数据。
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
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
272
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.
期刊最新文献
Endometriosis influencers on Instagram: Who are they and what are they posting? Transforming the #Enzian classification into a four-stage system: A feasibility study by comparison with the 2021 AAGL endometriosis classification. The Beginning of a Paradigm Shift: Increase in Perioperative Complications Following Vaginal Hysterectomy Compared to Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Using the ACS-NSQIP 2016 - 2019 Database. Editorial Board Vaginoscopic Resection of an Obstructed Right Hemivagina in Obstructed Hemivagina and Ipsilateral Renal Agenesis Syndrome
×
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