Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus conventional vaginal surgery for sacrospinous ligament fixation of apical compartment prolapse: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: To objectively assess the safety, feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) versus conventional vaginal (CV) surgery for sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent hysterectomy for SSLF via vNOTES or CV surgery due to apical compartment prolapse between April 2019 and April 2020 at our hospital. The patients were classified into the vNOTES group (n = 31) and CV surgery group (n = 51) based on surgical approach and their general characteristics and perioperative outcomes compared. RESULTS: The two groups had similar general characteristics. The anatomical success and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy rates were higher in the vNOTES than CV surgery group, while the postoperative stay was shorter in the vNOTES than CV surgery group. All differences were statistically significant. However, there were no statistically significant intergroup differences in operation time, bilateral salpingectomy rate, colporrhaphy rate, postoperative visual analog scale score, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin decrease at 72 h postoperative, maximum body temperature at 72 h postoperative, complication rate, buttock pain, or Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire-20 scores at 1 year postoperative. CONCLUSIONS: VNOTES for SSLF was safe and feasible and resulted in superior objective and subjective outcomes versus CV surgery for SSLF. These findings suggest that vNOTES could be an alternative to CV surgery for SSLF.

Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in gynecological procedure: Experience of a Women's and Children's Medical Center from China.

OBJECTIVE: To review of our hospital's experiences in transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) and challenges we encountered in performance of the procedure, so as to provide help to medical institutions who are preparing to carry out vNOTES. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of all patients receiving vNOTES in our hospital from April 2018 to May 2021. Data we collected cover the general characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and complications of the patients. RESULTS: A total of 1147 patients underwent vNOTES in the past 3 years at our hospital. The total numbers of adnexal surgery, myomectomy, hysterectomy, pelvic floor reconstruction surgery, and malignant tumor surgery performed via vNOTES were 902, 98, 82, 51, and 14, respectively. Eighteen patients were converted to transabdominal laparoscopic surgery. A total of 38 patients had complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification, and the total complication rate was 3.31%. Among these cases of complications, 27 were Grade I, 4 were Grade II, and 7 were Grade III. No complications of Grade IV or V were reported. CONCLUSION: The application of vNOTES is safe and feasible for most gynecological surgeries. Moreover, hospitals with traditional laparoscopic equipment are advised to try this technique as there is no need to purchase additional expensive equipment. However, since vNOTES represents a novel approach, the long-term complications and efficacy associated with this technique are pending to be verified through large-scale prospective multicenter randomized controlled studies.

Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in uterine prolapse surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Hysteropreservation and hysterectomy for uterine prolapse have been compared in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as the best treatment has not been definitively determined. This study aimed to summarize the available evidence in RCTs of hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy. METHODS: We performed electronic searches in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for eligible RCTs from inception to June 2020. The relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical and continuous variables using random-effects models. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs involving 1177 patients were selected for meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between hysteropreservation and hysterectomy for the incidences of recurrence (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.26-1.19; P = 0.130) and reoperation (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.56-2.37; P = 0.705). Moreover, neither hysteropreservation nor hysterectomy had any significant effect on the risk of constipation (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.15-3.46; P = 0.681), voiding dysfunction (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.54-1.84; P = 0.981), intraoperative bleeding (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05-2.26; P = 0.271), upper leg dullness (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.15-3.17; P = 0.643), dyspareunia (RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.69-3.13; P = 0.317), and wound infection (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.24-7.80; P = 0.714). Furthermore, hysteropreservation was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD, -25.68; 95% CI, -44.39 to -6.96; P = 0.007), shorter duration of surgery (WMD, -11.30; 95% CI, -19.04 to -3.55; P = 0.004), and shorter duration of hospitalization (WMD, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.16; P = 0.009) compared with hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: This study found that both hysteropreservation and hysterectomy have similar effects on recurrence and reoperation rates, while hysteropreservation was superior to hysterectomy in reducing intraoperative blood loss and shortening the duration of surgery and hospitalization.

Comparative analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in ovarian cystectomy.

AIM: To objectively assess the safety, feasibility, advantages and disadvantages and health economics benefits of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) versus transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (TU-LESS) in ovarian cystectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of all patients in our hospital who had undergone vNOTES and TU-LESS ovarian cystectomy due to 'unilateral ovarian cyst' from March 2019 to May 2020. Patients were classified into vNOTES group (86) and TU-LESS group (210) based on surgical paths. The patients' general characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: All 296 patients completed surgery with no need to switch to conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy procedures. There were no complications of Grade III, IV, V in Clavien-Dindo classification. There were two patients in the vNOTES group and four patients in the TU-LESS group with complications of Grade I, all of whom were treated with antipyretic drugs for postoperative fever. One patient in the TU-LESS group presented the complication of Grade II and was treated with blood transfusion due to postoperative anemia. The two groups had similar general characteristics. Perioperative outcomes: The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores 24 h postoperation were significantly lower in the vNOTES group than in the TU-LESS group. The cosmetic scores were significantly higher in the vNOTES group than in the TU-LESS group. Postoperative stay and time of flatus after surgery were significantly shorter in the vNOTES group than in the TU-LESS group. There was not significant statistical differences between the two groups in operation time, estimated blood loss, Hb decrease at 48 h postoperation, maximum body temperature in 48 h after surgery and hospital costs. CONCLUSION: It was proved to be safe and feasible in ovarian cystectomy by vNOTES. It worked better than TU-LESS in relieving postoperative pain, shortening postoperative stay and improving cosmetic effects and so on. As an emerging surgical path, large sample multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to further verify its safety and advantages.