-
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 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology May 2024To identify the optimal hysterectomy approach for large uteri in gynecologic surgery for benign indications from a perioperative morbidity standpoint.
OBJECTIVE
To identify the optimal hysterectomy approach for large uteri in gynecologic surgery for benign indications from a perioperative morbidity standpoint.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 19, 2022. Meta-analyses were conducted as feasible.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
This review included studies that compared routes of hysterectomy with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for large uteri (12 weeks or more or 250 g or more) and excluded studies with any concurrent surgery for pelvic organ prolapse, incontinence, gynecologic malignancy, or any obstetric indication for hysterectomy.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
The review included 25 studies comprising nine randomized trials, two prospective, and 14 retrospective nonrandomized comparative studies. Studies were at high risk of bias. There was lower operative time for total vaginal hysterectomy compared with laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (mean difference 39 minutes, 95% CI, 18-60) and total vaginal hysterectomy compared with total laparoscopic hysterectomy (mean difference 50 minutes, 95% CI, 29-70). Total laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with much greater risk of ureteral injury compared with total vaginal hysterectomy (odds ratio 7.54, 95% CI, 2.52-22.58). There were no significant differences in bowel injury rates between groups. There were no differences in length of stay among the laparoscopic approaches. For LAVH compared with total vaginal hysterectomy, randomized controlled trials favored total vaginal hysterectomy for length of stay. When rates of blood transfusion were compared between these abdominal hysterectomy and robotic-assisted total hysterectomy routes, abdominal hysterectomy was associated with a sixfold greater risk of transfusion than robotic-assisted total hysterectomy (6.31, 95% CI, 1.07-37.32). Similarly, single studies comparing robotic-assisted total hysterectomy with LAVH, total laparoscopic hysterectomy, or total vaginal hysterectomy all favored robotic-assisted total hysterectomy for reduced blood loss.
CONCLUSION
Minimally invasive routes are safe and effective and have few complications. Minimally invasive approach (vaginal, laparoscopic, or robotic) results in lower blood loss and shorter length of stay, whereas the abdominal route has a shorter operative time.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42021233300.
PubMed: 38743951
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005607 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates. Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous condition in women that can lead to endometrial cancer if left untreated. Endometrial hyperplasia occurs more commonly than endometrial cancer. Progesterone tablets that are currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. A levonorgestrel intrauterine device may improve compliance, but it is invasive, is not acceptable to all women, and is associated with irregular vaginal bleeding in 82% of cases. Therefore, an alternative treatment for women with endometrial hyperplasia is needed. Metformin, a drug that is often used to treat people with diabetes, has been shown, in some human studies, to reverse endometrial hyperplasia. However, the effectiveness and safety of metformin for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia remain uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin in treating women with endometrial hyperplasia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, LILACS, and two trials registers from inception to 5 September 2022. We searched the bibliographies of all relevant studies, and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing metformin (used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) versus placebo, no treatment, any conventional medical treatment, or any other active intervention for women with histologically confirmed endometrial hyperplasia of any type.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferring to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted the study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven RCTs, in which a total of 387 women took part. In the comparison, Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol alone, we rated the certainty of the evidence as low for the outcome, regression of endometrial hyperplasia. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the rest of the outcomes, in all three comparisons. Although there was a low risk of selection bias, there was a high risk of bias in the blinding of personnel and outcome assessment (performance bias and detection bias) in many studies. This update identified four new RCTs and six ongoing RCTs. Metformin versus megestrol We are uncertain whether metformin increases the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology over megestrol (odds ratio (OR) 4.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 15.32; P = 0.006; 2 RCTs, 83 participants; I² = 7%; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol is 61%, the rate of regression with metformin would be between 71% and 96%. It is unresolved whether metformin results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding or hysterectomy compared to megestrol. No study in this comparison reported progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, health-related quality of life, or adverse effects during treatment. Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol monotherapy The combination of metformin and megestrol may enhance the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology more than megestrol alone (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.65 to 6.51; P = 0.0007; 4 RCTs, 258 participants; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol monotherapy is 54%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 66% and 84%. In one study, 3/8 (37.5%) of participants who took metformin had nausea that settled without further treatment. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and megestrol results in different rates of recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or hysterectomy compared to megestrol monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported abnormal uterine bleeding, or health-related quality of life. Metformin plus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) versus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) monotherapy We are uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.56; 1 RCT, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with levonorgestrel monotherapy is 96%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 73% and 100%. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and levonorgestrel results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding, hysterectomy, or the development of adverse effects during treatment compared to levonorgestrel monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or health-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Review authors found insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of metformin, specifically megestrol acetate, given alone or in combination with standard therapy, for the treatment of women with endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials, yielding long-term outcome data are still needed to address this clinical question.
Topics: Female; Humans; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Metformin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38695827
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012214.pub3 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2024Cesarean section (CS) rates have been on the rise globally, leading to an increasing number of women facing the decision between a Trial of Labor after two Cesarean... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Cesarean section (CS) rates have been on the rise globally, leading to an increasing number of women facing the decision between a Trial of Labor after two Cesarean Sections (TOLAC-2) or opting for an Elective Repeat Cesarean Section (ERCS). This study evaluates and compares safety outcomes of TOLAC and ERCS in women with a history of two previous CS deliveries.
METHODS
PubMed, MEDLINE, EMbase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for studies published until 30 June 2023. Eligible studies were included based on predetermined criteria, and a random-effects model was employed to pool data for maternal and neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies with a combined sample size of 101,011 women who had two prior CS were included. TOLAC-2 was associated with significantly higher maternal mortality (odds ratio (OR)=1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 1.25-1.81) and higher chance of uterine rupture (OR = 7.15, 95% CI = 3.44-14.87) compared to ERCS. However, no correlation was found for other maternal outcomes, including blood transfusion, hysterectomy, or post-partum hemorrhage. Furthermore, neonatal outcomes, such as Apgar scores, NICU admissions, and neonatal mortality, were comparable in the TOLAC-2 and ERCS groups.
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest an increased risk of uterine rupture and maternal mortality with TOLAC-2, emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment and shared decision-making by healthcare professionals. Additional studies are needed to refine our understanding of these outcomes in the context of TOLAC-2.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Cesarean Section; Trial of Labor; Uterine Rupture; Vaginal Birth after Cesarean; Labor, Obstetric; Cesarean Section, Repeat; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38485519
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2024.2326301 -
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 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2024Primary vaginal cancer is a rare condition. Some studies have revealed an increased risk of vaginal cancer among patients who have undergone hysterectomy for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Primary vaginal cancer is a rare condition. Some studies have revealed an increased risk of vaginal cancer among patients who have undergone hysterectomy for premalignant and malignant cervical disease. However, there is limited literature available on primary vaginal cancer following hysterectomy for benign conditions.
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to investigate available evidence on clinical characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of primary vaginal cancer following hysterectomy for benign diseases. Additionally, we provide a case of a patient who developed primary vaginal cancer 10 years after undergoing hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We conducted a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science using a combination of title and abstract represented by "hysterectomy", and "vaginal cancer"; "vaginal neoplasm"; and "cancer of vagina". No article type restrictions were applied.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight studies with a total of 56 cases were included in this review. The main symptom observed was vaginal bleeding. Squamous cancer was found to be the most common type, followed by adenocarcinoma. The majority of vaginal cancer cases occurred approximately 10 years after undergoing hysterectomy. The most common location of the tumor was in the vaginal apex. The management approaches varied and details were available in 25 cases. Among these, 7 cases were treated with radiotherapy alone, 1 case received concurrent chemoradiation therapy, and the of rest of the cases underwent surgery as the primary treatment, with or without additional adjuvant therapy. Data of follow-up was available for 15 cases, with 2 cases resulting in death and 2 cases experiencing recurrence. The other cases were alive and well at the time of considered follow up.
CONCLUSION
Primary vaginal cancer after hysterectomy for benign conditions is an extremely rare condition. It is essential to have high-level evidence to guide the screening and treatment strategy for this rare condition. A part of women who have undergone hysterectomy for benign disorders can benefit from vaginal cytology evaluation. It is reasonable to postpone the initial screening after surgery and to extend the interval between subsequent screenings. Further retrospective case-control trials are expected to determine which specific subgroups of patients mentioned above might most potentially benefit from screening. The treatment decision for vaginal cancer after hysterectomy is more favorable to radiotherapy-based management rather than surgery. Vaginal endometrioid adenocarcinoma may arise from the malignant transformation of endometriosis. More studies are expected to investigate the correlation between these two diseases.
PubMed: 38347832
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1334778 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Apr 2024To systematically review the literature to evaluate clinical and surgical outcomes for technologies that facilitate vaginal surgical procedures.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature to evaluate clinical and surgical outcomes for technologies that facilitate vaginal surgical procedures.
DATA SOURCES
We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1990 to May 2022.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Comparative and single-arm studies with data on contemporary tools or technologies facilitating intraoperative performance of vaginal gynecologic surgical procedures for benign indications were included. Citations were independently double screened, and eligible full-text articles were extracted by two reviewers. Data collected included study characteristics, technology, patient demographics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Risk of bias for comparative studies was assessed using established methods, and restricted maximum likelihood model meta-analyses were conducted as indicated.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
The search yielded 8,658 abstracts, with 116 eligible studies that evaluated pedicle sealing devices (n=32), nonrobotic and robotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (n=64), suture capture devices (n=17), loop ligatures (n=2), and table-mounted telescopic cameras (n=1). Based on 19 comparative studies, pedicle sealing devices lowered vaginal hysterectomy operative time by 15.9 minutes (95% CI, -23.3 to -85), blood loss by 36.9 mL (95% CI, -56.9 to -17.0), hospital stay by 0.2 days (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.1), and visual analog scale pain scores by 1.4 points on a subjective 10-point scale (95% CI, -1.7 to -1.1). Three nonrandomized comparative studies and 53 single-arm studies supported the feasibility of nonrobotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for hysterectomy, adnexal surgery, pelvic reconstruction, and myomectomy. Data were limited for robotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, suture capture devices, loop ligatures, and table-mounted cameras due to few studies or study heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
Pedicle sealing devices lower operative time and blood loss for vaginal hysterectomy, with modest reductions in hospital stay and pain scores. Although other technologies identified in the literature may have potential to facilitate vaginal surgical procedures and improve outcomes, additional comparative effectiveness research is needed.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42022327490.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Vagina; Laparoscopy; Pain; Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 38301255
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005522 -
International Journal of Gynaecology... Jul 2024Previous reviews on hysterectomy versus uterine-sparing surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair did not consider that the open abdominal approach or transvaginal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Previous reviews on hysterectomy versus uterine-sparing surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair did not consider that the open abdominal approach or transvaginal mesh use have been largely abandoned.
OBJECTIVES
To provide up-to-date evidence by examining only studies investigating techniques currently in use for POP repair.
SEARCH STRATEGY
MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing surgical procedures for POP with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Studies describing open abdominal approaches or transvaginal mesh implantation were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A random effect meta-analysis was conducted on extracted data reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies were included. Hysterectomy and uterine-sparing procedures did not differ in reoperation rate (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.74-1.17), intraoperative major (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.79-2.26) and minor (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.79-2.4) complications, postoperative major (OR 1.42; 95% CI 0.85-2.37) and minor (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.9-1.53) complications, and objective (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.92-2.07) or subjective (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.8-1.88) success. Uterine preservation was associated with a shorter operative time (-22.7 min; 95% CI -16.92 to -28.51 min), shorter hospital stay (-0.35 days, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.65 days), and less blood loss (-61.7 mL; 95% CI -31.3 to -92.1 mL). When only studies using a laparoscopic approach for both arms were considered, no differences were observed in investigated outcomes between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
No major differences were observed in POP outcomes between procedures with and without concomitant hysterectomy. The decision to preserve or remove the uterus should be tailored on individual factors.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Hysterectomy; Organ Sparing Treatments; Postoperative Complications; Uterus; Reoperation; Operative Time
PubMed: 38269852
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.15343 -
International Journal of Gynaecology... Jan 2024Despite the rising rates of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of surgery for non-malignant conditions, salpingectomy is not widely adopted during vaginal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the rising rates of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of surgery for non-malignant conditions, salpingectomy is not widely adopted during vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and has not been extensively investigated.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the primary study was to determine the feasibility of bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of VH. Secondary aims included surgical outcomes, factors associated with patient selection, and the prevalence of incidental tubal malignancies.
SEARCH STRATEGY
In this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched Pubmed, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception to September 1, 2023, using relevant keywords.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Original articles with no language restriction reporting outcomes of women undergoing planned VH with opportunistic salpingectomy, were considered eligible. Studies including patients undergoing VH with and without opportunistic salpingectomy were also included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess quality of observational studies. DerSimonian-Laird random effects meta-analysis was performed and pooled effect estimates and proportions with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were computed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic.
RESULTS
Seven observational cohort studies including 4808 women undergoing opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of VH and 10 295 patients undergoing VH alone were selected. The pooled proportion of success was 81.83 per 100 observations (95% CI: 75.35-87.54). Opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of VH, when feasible, was associated with a significant reduction in intraoperative complications (OR 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01, -0.37, P = 0.03) and total operative time (95% CI: -17.80, -1.07, P = 0.03) compared to those where it failed. Successful salpingectomy was significantly hindered by nulliparity (OR 0.12, 95% CI: -17.69, -1.21, P < 0.001) and favored by pelvic organ prolapse (OR 3.20, 95% CI: 1.35, 7.55, P = 0.008). Immunohistochemical tubal abnormalities were found in 13/579 (2.1%) patients. The overall quality of the evidence, according to the GRADE assessment, was low.
CONCLUSION
Opportunistic salpingectomy is safe, effective, and feasible at the time of VH. Nulliparity and pelvic organ prolapse are factors potentially influencing surgical outcomes.
PubMed: 38247214
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.15386 -
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