-
AJOG Global Reports May 2024As the second most common surgery performed on women in the United States, hysterectomy techniques are constantly examined for validity and superiority. The vaginal... (Review)
Review
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]; =.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]; =.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.
PubMed: 38883323
DOI: 10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100355 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Aug 2011To determine the incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence after minimally invasive hysterectomy, we reported our series of total laparoscopic hysterectomies with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence after minimally invasive hysterectomy, we reported our series of total laparoscopic hysterectomies with transvaginal colporraphy.
STUDY DESIGN
We then conducted a systematic search of PubMed to retrieve published series of laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies, in which different techniques for vaginal cuff closure were used.
RESULTS
In our study group, vaginal cuff dehiscence occurred in 2 of 665 (0.3%) patients. Our literature search identified 57 articles, for a total of 13,030 endoscopic hysterectomies. Ninety-one postoperative vaginal separations were reported (0.66%). The pooled incidence of vaginal dehiscence was lower for transvaginal cuff closure (0.18%) than for both laparoscopic (0.64%; odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-0.65) and robotic (1.64%; OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.26) colporraphy. Laparoscopic cuff closure was associated with a lower risk of dehiscence than robotic closure (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.28-0.6).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence indicates that transvaginal colporraphy after total laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with a 3- and 9-fold reduction in risk of vaginal cuff dehiscence compared with laparoscopic and robotic suture, respectively.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cohort Studies; Confidence Intervals; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Robotics; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Suture Techniques; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Diseases; Uterine Neoplasms; Vagina
PubMed: 21620360
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.03.024 -
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Mar 2021Vaginal cuff dehiscence, a severe and potentially detrimental complication, has significantly increased after the introduction of endoscopic hysterectomy. The aim of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Vaginal cuff dehiscence, a severe and potentially detrimental complication, has significantly increased after the introduction of endoscopic hysterectomy. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature was to identify the incidence of, and possible strategies to prevent, this complication after total laparoscopic hysterectomy and total robotic hysterectomy.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically queried to identify all articles reporting either laparoscopic or robot-assisted hysterectomies for benign indications in which vaginal dehiscence was reported as an outcome. Reference lists of the identified studies were manually searched. Only papers written in English were considered.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
The Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome framework for the review included (1) population of interest: women who underwent conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy; (2) interventions: possible methods to prevent vaginal dehiscence; (3) comparison: experimental strategies vs standard treatment or alternative strategy for each item of intervention; and (4) outcome: rate of vaginal dehiscence. Series of subtotal hysterectomies and radical hysterectomies in addition to reports that combined both benign and malignant cases were excluded. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.4.1 (Cochrane Training, London, United Kingdom). Two independent reviewers identified all reports comparing 2 or more possible strategies to prevent vaginal dehiscence.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
A total of 460 articles were identified. Of these, 20 (6 randomized, 2 prospective, and 12 retrospective) studies were included in this review for a total of 19 392 patients. The incidence of vaginal dehiscence after total laparoscopic hysterectomy ranged between 0.64% and 1.35%. Robotic hysterectomy was associated with a risk of vaginal dehiscence of approximately 1.64%. No study compared early vs delayed resumption of coital activity nor analyzed the role of training in laparoscopic suturing. No study specifically assessed the impact of electrosurgery on the risk of vaginal dehiscence in endoscopic hysterectomies for benign indications. Double-layer and reinforced sutures did not decrease the risk of dehiscence. Barbed sutures reduced the risk of separation compared with nonbarbed closure (0.4% [4/1108] vs 2% [22/1097]; odds ratio [OR] 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.57). However, these data came mainly from retrospective series. Excluding studies on the use of self-anchoring sutures during robotic hysterectomy, there was no significant difference in the risk of dehiscence between barbed and nonbarbed sutures (0.5% [4/890] vs 1.4% [181/776]; OR 0.38; 95% CI, 0.13-1.10). Transvaginal suture of the vault at the end of an endoscopic hysterectomy seemed to increase the risk of dehiscence when compared with laparoscopic closure (2.3% [23/1002] vs 1.16% [11/944]; OR 1.97; 95% CI, 1.00-3.88).
CONCLUSION
There is a paucity of high-quality papers evaluating vaginal dehiscence and possible prevention strategies in the current literature. Only 2 effective strategies have been identified in reducing the risk for this complication: the use of barbed sutures and the adoption of a laparoscopic approach to close the vaginal cuff. When restricting the analysis only to laparoscopic cases, the use of barbed sutures does not protect against vaginal cuff separation.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Incidence; Laparoscopy; Risk Factors; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Suture Techniques; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Vaginal Diseases
PubMed: 33348012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.12.016 -
International Urogynecology Journal Feb 2023We aim to review iatrogenic bladder and ureteric injuries sustained during caesarean section and hysterectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
We aim to review iatrogenic bladder and ureteric injuries sustained during caesarean section and hysterectomy.
METHODS
A search of Cochrane, Embase, Medline and grey literature was performed using methods pre-published on PROSPERO. Eligible studies described iatrogenic bladder or ureter injury rates during caesarean section or hysterectomy. The 15 largest studies were included for each procedure sub-type and meta-analyses performed. The primary outcome was injury incidence. Secondary outcomes were risk factors and preventative measures.
RESULTS
Ninety-six eligible studies were identified, representing 1,741,894 women. Amongst women undergoing caesarean section, weighted pooled rates of bladder or ureteric injury per 100,000 procedures were 267 or 9 events respectively. Injury rates during hysterectomy varied by approach and pathological condition. Weighted pooled mean rates for bladder injury were 212-997 events per 100,000 procedures for all approaches (open, vaginal, laparoscopic, laparoscopically assisted vaginal and robot assisted) and all pathological conditions (benign, malignant, any), except for open peripartum hysterectomy (6,279 events) and laparoscopic hysterectomy for malignancy (1,553 events). Similarly, weighted pooled mean rates for ureteric injury were 9-577 events per 100,000 procedures for all hysterectomy approaches and pathologies, except for open peripartum hysterectomy (666 events) and laparoscopic hysterectomy for malignancy (814 events). Surgeon inexperience was the prime risk factor for injury, and improved anatomical knowledge the leading preventative strategy.
CONCLUSIONS
Caesarean section and most types of hysterectomy carry low rates of urological injury. Obstetricians and gynaecologists should counsel the patient for her individual risk of injury, prospectively establish risk factors and implement preventative strategies.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Cesarean Section; Hysterectomy; Iatrogenic Disease; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Bladder Diseases
PubMed: 36251061
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-022-05339-7 -
Gynecologic Oncology Sep 2022Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery...
BACKGROUND
Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.
METHODS
Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.
RESULTS
18 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 8 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3033 patiets were included. Meta-analysis highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.82 [95% CI 0.55-1.23] p = 0.34; I = 0%; p = 0.96). OS was feasible only for 3 studies (RR 1.14 [95% CI 0.28-4.67] p = 0.43; I = 0 p = 0.86). Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.
CONCLUSION
LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.
PubMed: 36150915
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.09.001 -
Gynecology and Minimally Invasive... 2023Gradually increasing interest in laparoscopic surgeries has led to the advent of various lesser invasive techniques in the form of vaginal natural orifice transluminal... (Review)
Review
Comparison of Outcomes following Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery and Laparoendoscopic Single-site Surgery in Benign Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Gradually increasing interest in laparoscopic surgeries has led to the advent of various lesser invasive techniques in the form of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. Very few studies have analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of vNOTES over LESS surgeries in hysterectomy. After a comprehensive search, full texts of relevant manuscripts were obtained to assess eligibility for recruitment. A comprehensive meta-analysis was subsequently performed to compare the outcomes of vNOTES and LESS in hysterectomy, and forest plots were constructed. Four articles were rendered for review (three retrospective cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial). Three studies showed lesser postoperative pain in vNOTES compared to LESS. In one study, postoperative vaginal pain was higher in vNOTES due to additional suture between uterine artery and vaginal wall. The meta-analysis concluded that vNOTES could be better alternative to LESS hysterectomies. However, further large multicentric randomized trials are required for the standardization of the surgical method.
PubMed: 38034107
DOI: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_88_22 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences.
OBJECTIVES
To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB.
METHODS
We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.
Topics: Amenorrhea; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Network Meta-Analysis; Progestins; Quality of Life; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 35638592
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013180.pub2 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2023Women's choice of birth following a cesarean delivery either includes a trial of elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). No... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Women's choice of birth following a cesarean delivery either includes a trial of elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). No comprehensive overview or systematic summary is currently available.
METHODS
EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 1 February 2020. Studies reporting the safety of TOLAC and ERCS in pregnant women with prior cesarean delivery were included. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adopted as the effective measures.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies covering 676,532 cases were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the rates of uterine rupture (OR = 3.35, 95%CI [1.57, 7.15], = 81%), neonatal asphyxia (OR = 2.32, 95%CI [1.76, 3.08], = 0%) and perinatal death (OR = 1.71, 95%CI [1.29, 2.25], = 0%) were higher in the TOLAC group compared with the ERCS group. The rates of peripartum hysterectomy (OR = 0.70, 95%CI [0.44, 1.11], = 62%), blood transfusion (OR = 1.24, 95%CI [0.72, 2.12], = 95%), and puerperal infection (OR = 1.11, 95%CI [0.77, 1.60], = 95%) showed no significant differences between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
TOLAC is associated with a higher risk of uterine rupture, neonatal asphyxia, and perinatal death compared with ERCS. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the risks of all complications were small in both groups. This information is important for healthcare providers and women choosing the delivery type.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Cesarean Section; Cesarean Section, Repeat; Trial of Labor; Perinatal Death; Uterine Rupture; Asphyxia; Vaginal Birth after Cesarean; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37217450
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2214831 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Jun 2014In order to assess the effectiveness and costs of robot-assisted hysterectomy compared with conventional techniques we reviewed the literature separately for benign and... (Review)
Review
In order to assess the effectiveness and costs of robot-assisted hysterectomy compared with conventional techniques we reviewed the literature separately for benign and malignant conditions, and conducted a cost analysis for different techniques of hysterectomy from a hospital economic database. Unlimited systematic literature search of Medline, Cochrane and CRD databases produced only two randomized trials, both for benign conditions. For the outcome assessment, data from two HTA reports, one systematic review, and 16 original articles were extracted and analyzed. Furthermore, one cost modelling and 13 original cost studies were analyzed. In malignant conditions, less blood loss, fewer complications and a shorter hospital stay were considered as the main advantages of robot-assisted surgery, like any mini-invasive technique when compared to open surgery. There were no significant differences between the techniques regarding oncological outcomes. When compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy, the main benefit of robot-assistance was a shorter learning curve associated with fewer conversions but the length of robotic operation was often longer. In benign conditions, no clinically significant differences were reported and vaginal hysterectomy was considered the optimal choice when feasible. According to Finnish data, the costs of robot-assisted hysterectomies were 1.5-3 times higher than the costs of conventional techniques. In benign conditions the difference in cost was highest. Because of expensive disposable supplies, unit costs were high regardless of the annual number of robotic operations. Hence, in the current distribution of cost pattern, economical effectiveness cannot be markedly improved by increasing the volume of robotic surgery.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Costs and Cost Analysis; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 24703710
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.03.010 -
AJOG Global Reports Feb 2024Because vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques both aim to decrease tissue injury and postoperative morbidity... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Because vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques both aim to decrease tissue injury and postoperative morbidity and mortality and to improve a patient's quality of life, we sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and compared that with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic diseases.
DATA SOURCES
We used Scopus, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library and searched from database inception to September 1, 2023.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included all eligible articles that compared vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy with any conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy technique without robotic assistance for women with benign gynecologic pathology and that included at least 1 of our main outcomes. These outcomes included estimated blood loss (in mL), operation time (in minutes), length of hospital stay (in days), decrease in hemoglobin level (g/dL), visual analog scale pain score on postoperative day 1, opioid analgesic dose required, rate of conversion to another surgical technique, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and requirements for blood transfusion. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Ultimately, 14 studies met our criteria.
METHODS
The study quality of the randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane assessment tool, and the quality of the observational studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. We analyzed data using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals under the inverse variance analysis method. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using OpenMeta[Analyst] and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported.
RESULTS
The operative time and length of hospitalization were shorter in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery cohort. We also found lower visual analog scale pain scores, fewer postoperative complications, and fewer blood transfusions in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group. We found no difference in the estimated blood loss, decrease in hemoglobin levels, analgesic usage, conversion rates, or intraoperative complications.
CONCLUSION
When evaluating the latest data, it seems that vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery techniques may have some advantages over conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques.
PubMed: 38440153
DOI: 10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100320