ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To reflect on the complications of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES), identify the corresponding risk factors, and provide caution to surgeons when performing this novel surgery. METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out among 2000 patients in our hospital who underwent vNOTES between May 2019 and May 2022. Perioperative complications were stratified in chronological order and divided into those developed while establishing the vNOTES approach, during surgery, postoperatively, and 1 month after discharge. The complications were classified based on the Modified Clavien-Dindo classifications. The causes of each type III/IV complication were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 2000 patients, 88 (4.4%) experienced complications, which is not higher than that reported in laparoendoscopic surgery in previous studies. Grade I, II, III, IV, and V complications developed in 19 (0.95%), 57 (2.85%), 11 (0.55%), 1 (0.05%), and 0 (0%) patients, respectively. Complications were developed while establishing the approach platform, during the surgery, postoperatively, and within 1 month after discharge in 5 (0.25%), 30 (1.50%), 50 (2.50%), and 3 (0.15%) patients, respectively. Eight patients (0.4%) underwent conversion, including five cases of rectal injury repair. CONCLUSION: The summarized suggestions were divided into three levels. Considering the security and effectiveness of vNOTES, it can be routinely used in various gynecologic operations. However, surgeons should focus on preoperative evaluation, strictly conduct preoperative disinfection, conform to prompt conversion during surgery, call for the presence of experienced doctors, and have routine use of antibiotics to prevent postoperative infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2100053483.
Subject(s)
Laparoscopy , Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery , Physicians , Humans , Female , Retrospective Studies , Gynecologic Surgical Procedures , Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery/adverse effects , Rectum , Vagina/surgeryABSTRACT
Objective: The goal of this research was to investigate the feasibility, safety, and short-term clinical outcome of pure extraperitoneal sacrocolpopexy with transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) for treating central pelvic defects. Material and Methods: A total of 9 patients with central pelvic prolapse underwent extraperitoneal sacrocolpopexy with V-NOTES, at the Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, between December 2020 and June 2022. The patients' demographic characteristics, perioperative parameters, and clinical outcomes were analyzed retrospectively. Each patient had the following major surgical procedures: (1) Establishing a platform for an extraperitoneal approach with V-NOTES; (2) separating the extraperitoneal path to the sacral promontory region; (3) suturing the long arm of the mesh to the anterior longitudinal ligament S1; and (4) suturing and fixating the short arm of the mesh at the top of the vagina. Results: The median patient age was 55, the median operative time was 145 minutes, and the median intraoperative blood loss was 150 mL. The operations were successful for all 9 cases, with a median preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification score of C: +4, and a 3-months postoperative score of C: -6. There were no recurrences during a follow-up of 3-11 months, and no complications occurred, such as mesh erosion, exposure, and infection. Conclusion: As a new surgical approach, extraperitoneal sacrocolpopexy with V-NOTES is safe and feasible. (J GYNECOL SURG 39:108).
ABSTRACT
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.