VaNoLaH trial: a study protocol-a multinational randomised controlled trial including two identical substudies comparing vaginal versus vNOTES (vaginal natural orifice transluminal surgery) hysterectomy or laparoscopic versus vNOTES hysterectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Hysterectomy is one of the most common surgeries performed in women. Minimally invasive methods are on the rise globally as they have been shown to decrease surgical morbidity compared with abdominal hysterectomy. Hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) is the latest innovation. It combines the vaginal approach and endoscopy via the vagina. Large pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking comparing outcomes after vNOTES, vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH). METHODS: Multicentre pragmatic RCT aiming to recruit 1000 women aged 18-75 years undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease. The RCT includes two identical substudies (groups A and B). If VH is considered safe and feasible, the patient will be randomised within group A (VH vs vNOTES). If VH is not considered safe or feasible, patients will be randomised within group B (LH vs vNOTES). ANALYSIS: Primary outcome is the proportion of women leaving the hospital within 12 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes are hospitalisation time, conversion rates, duration of the surgical procedure, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications and readmission. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Ethical Board Committee at Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium, has approved the research protocol 230704 (principal investigator). Before including patients, all centres will require local or national ethical approval. The results of the study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05971875.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Hysterectomy by Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) Compared to Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Indications.

(1) Objective: We aimed to report an update of the systematic review and meta-analysis by Baekelandt et al. (2016). (2) Method: We followed PRISMA guidelines to perform this systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and additional sources and aimed to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and prospective/retrospective cohort studies in human subjects that allowed direct comparison of vNOTES to laparoscopy. (3) Results: Our search yielded one RCT and five retrospective cohort trials. Pooled analysis of two subgroups showed that, compared to conventional laparoscopy, vNOTES is equally effective to successfully remove the uterus in individuals meeting the inclusion criteria. vNOTES had significantly lower values for operation time, length of stay and estimated blood loss. There was no significant difference in intra- and postoperative complications, readmission, pain scores at 24 h postoperative and change in hemoglobin (Hb) on day 1 postoperative.

Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) adnexectomy for benign pathology compared with laparoscopic excision (NOTABLE): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) uses natural orifices to access the cavities of the human body to perform surgical interventions. NOTES limits the magnitude of surgical trauma and potentially reduces postoperative pain. Our group published a protocol on a randomised study comparing transvaginal NOTES (vNOTES) versus laparoscopy for hysterectomy (HALON). We simultaneously designed a similar randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing vNOTES with laparoscopy for adnexectomy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first RCT comparing vNOTES with laparoscopy for adnexal surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The methodology of the Notes Adnexectomy for Benign Indication versus Laparoscopic Excision (NOTABLE) study is similar to that of the HALON trial. Women aged 18-70 years with an indication for benign adnexal surgery will be eligible. We will use stratification according to adnexal size. Entrants will be randomised to the laparoscopic treatment (control) or vNOTES (intervention). Participants will be evaluated on days 0-7 and at 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome will be the proportion of women successfully treated by removing an adnexa by the allocated technique without conversion. We will collect the following data (secondary outcomes): proportion of women hospitalised on the day of surgery, postoperative pain scores measured two times per day from day 1 to 7, total dosage of pain killers used from day 1 to 7, hospital readmission during the first 6 weeks, dyspareunia and sexual well-being at baseline, 3 and 6 months using a validated questionnaire (Short Sexual Functioning Scale), health-related quality of life at baseline, 3 and 6 months after surgery using a validated questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), duration of surgical intervention, infection or other surgical complications and direct costs up to 6 weeks following surgery. For the primary outcome measure, a one-sided 95% CI of the difference in the proportions of women with a successful removal of the uterus by the randomised technique will be estimated. Non-inferiority will be concluded when 15% lies above the upper limit of this 95% CI. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved on 1 December 2015 by the EthicsCommitteeof the Imelda Hospital (registration no: 689), Bonheiden, Belgium. We aim to present the final results of the NOTABLE trial in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings within 4 years after the start of the recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02630329.

Postoperative outcomes and quality of life following hysterectomy by natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) compared to laparoscopy in women with a non-prolapsed uterus and benign gynaecological disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise studies comparing benefits and harms in women with benign disease without prolapse undergoing hysterectomy by natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) versus laparoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: We followed the PRISMA guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and cohort studies comparing NOTES with laparoscopy assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) or total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in women bound to undergo removal of a non-prolapsed uterus for benign disease. Two authors searched and selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias independently. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or arbitration. RESULTS: We did not find RCTs but retrieved two retrospective cohort studies comparing NOTES with LAVH. The study quality as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was acceptable. Both studies reported no conversions. The operative time in women treated by NOTES was shorter compared to LAVH: the mean difference (MD) was -22.04min (95% CI -28.00min to -16.08min; 342 women; 2 studies). There were no differences for complications in women treated by NOTES compared to LAVH: the risk ratio (RR) was 0.57 (95% CI 0.17-1.91; 342 women; 2 studies). The length of stay was shorter in women treated by NOTES versus LAVH: the MD was -0.42days (95% CI -0.59days to -0.25days; 342 women; 2 studies). There were no differences for the median VAS scores at 12h between women treated by NOTES (median 2, range 0-6) or by LAVH (median 2, range 0-6) (48 women, 1 study). There were no differences in the median additional analgesic dose request in women treated by NOTES (median 0, range 0-6) or by LAVH (median 1, range 0-5) (48 women, 1 study). The hospital charges for treatment by NOTES were higher compared to LAVH: the mean difference was 137.00 € (95% CI 88.95-185.05 €; 294 women; 1 study). CONCLUSIONS: At the present NOTES should be considered as a technique under evaluation for use in gynaecological surgery. RCTs are needed to demonstrate its effectiveness.