Comparing vNOTES Hysterectomy with Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Large Uteri.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to compare conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies (LHs) with vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) hysterectomies performed for patients with large uteri (weight >280 g) at our institution, which underwent a change in practice from conventional LH to vNOTES for large uteri. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: French tertiary university hospital. PATIENTS: Two cohorts: the last 54 patients who underwent vNOTES hysterectomy and the last 52 patients who underwent conventional LH for large uteri. INTERVENTION: Baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes were assessed, including uterine weight, mode of delivery for previous pregnancies, history of abdominal surgery, indication for hysterectomy, associated procedures, operative time (OT), complications, volume of intraoperative bleeding, and length of postoperative hospital stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Both groups were comparable, with a mean uterine weight of 586.4 ± 289.2 g in the laparoscopy group compared with 686.7 ± 374.6 g in the vNOTES group. There was a significant decrease in the OT in the vNOTES group with a median of 99 minutes (66.5-138.5 minutes) compared with 171 minutes (131-208 minutes) in the laparoscopy group, p <.001. The length of hospital stay was also decreased in the vNOTES group with a median of 0.5 nights compared with 2 nights in the laparoscopy group, p <.001. More patients were managed in an ambulatory setting in the vNOTES group (50% vs 3.7%, p <.001). Our study did not find any significant difference in terms of bleeding or the number of conversions to another surgical approach. The frequency of intraoperative and postoperative complications was very low. CONCLUSION: Compared with the laparoscopic approach, vNOTES hysterectomy for large uteri (>280 g) is associated with decreased OT, a shorter hospital stay, and increased performance in the ambulatory setting.

Reducing pain by using venous blood gas instead of arterial blood gas (VEINART): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Venous sampling for blood gas analysis has been suggested as an alternative to arterial sampling in order to reduce pain. The main objective was to compare pain induced by venous and arterial sampling and to assess whether the type of sampling would affect clinical management or not. METHODS: We performed an open-label randomised multicentre prospective study in four French EDs during a 4-week period. Non-hypoxaemic adults, whose medical management required blood gas analysis, were randomly allocated using a computer-generated randomisation list stratified by centres with an allocation ratio of 1:1 using random blocks to one of the two arms: venous or arterial sampling. The primary outcome was the maximal pain during sampling, using the visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes pertained to ease of sampling as rated by the nurse drawing the blood, and physician satisfaction regarding usefulness of biochemical data. RESULTS: 113 patients were included: 55 in the arterial and 58 in the venous sampling group. The mean maximal pain was 40.5 mm±24.9 mm and 22.6 mm±20.2 mm in the arterial group and the venous group, respectively, accounting for a mean difference of 17.9 mm (95% CI 9.6 to 26.3) (p<0.0001). Ease of blood sampling was greater in the venous group as compared with the arterial group (p=0.02). The usefulness of the results, evaluated by the prescriber, did not significantly differ (p=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Venous blood gas is less painful for patients than ABG in non-hypoxaemic patients. Venous blood gas should replace ABG in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03784664.