ArticleSurgical endoscopy2014
Transvaginal organ extraction: potential for broad clinical application.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocol for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Is it rocket science?World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Hybrid NOTES transvaginal intraperitoneal onlay mesh in abdominal wall hernias: an alternative to traditional laparoscopic procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Laparo-endoscopic transgastric resection of gastric submucosal tumors.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Transvaginal appendectomy in morbidly obese patient.Case reports in surgery · 2014Article
- Transvaginal appendectomy: a systematic review.Minimally invasive surgery · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery procedures have evolved over the past few years. A transvaginal approach is a promising alternative for intraperitoneal procedures. Our objective was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of transvaginal organ extraction.
methodsThis institutional review board-approved protocol involved retrospective review of an ongoing prospective study. Female subjects who presented to our hospital for elective cholecystectomy, appendectomy, or sleeve gastrectomy were offered participation in the study. Eligible patients met the following criteria: age between 18 and 75, diagnosis of gallbladder disease, acute appendicitis, or morbid obesity who desired surgical treatment. A hybrid transvaginal natural orifice approach was used in this series.
resultsThirty-four women underwent transvaginal organ extraction between September 2007 and January 2012. The mean age was 40 ± 12.1 years (range 23-63 years). The mean body mass index was 27 ± 6.4 kg/m(2) (range 16-43 kg/m(2)). All patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of two or below. The mean operative time for cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and sleeve gastrectomy was 90, 71, and 135 min, respectively. There were no conversions to open operation and no intraoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was 2 days for all cases. Patients were followed for a mean of 24 months (range 1-61 months). There were two pregnancies and two successful vaginal deliveries. Six patients (18 %) had minor complaints of spotting or heavy menses in the immediate postoperative period that resolved with conservative measures. There were no abdominal wall complications. There were no long-term complications and no mortalities.
conclusionsThis initial experience suggests that this surgical approach is safe, does not increase length of stay, and has no long-term vaginal complications. Given this attractive profile, a transvaginal approach may prove to be a superior mode of organ extraction, although randomized studies and long-term follow-up are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24149847What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.