ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2023
Comparing outcomes of ovarian cystectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for malignant ovarian tumors: a single-institution study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy and safety study of vNOTES for benign ovarian tumors in obese patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Vaginal natural orifice transvaginal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) for benign ovarian cysts is safe and feasible in same-day discharge: a retrospective cohort study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive approach is preferred for clinical stage 1 endometrioid-type endometrial cancer.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to compare the outcomes of ovarian cystectomy (OC) performed by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) vs transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of patients in our hospital who underwent OC either by vNOTES or LESS between January 2015 and September 2021. Demographic data were collected. The primary outcome was the conversion rate. The secondary outcomes were the duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, maximum body temperature within 48 hours after operation, and duration of maximum body temperature (hours), among others. Statistical analysis was done using the SPSS software.
resultsExactly 284 patients were screened. The vNOTES and LESS groups consisted of 21 and 47 patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in the conversion rates between the two groups (0 vs 8.5% in vNOTES and LESS, respectively; p = 0.303). Compared with the vNOTES group, the LESS group had a larger cyst diameter (6.00 ± 2.32 vs 4.69 ± 1.29 cm; p = 0.004), more endometriotic cysts (42.6% vs 9.5%; p < 0.001), and more pelvic adhesions requiring adhesiolysis (57.4% vs 19.0%; p = 0.003). At baseline, there were no other differences between the groups. The secondary outcomes included a shorter duration of surgery (70.14 ± 27.30 vs 99.57 ± 36.26 minutes; p = 0.001) and lower estimated blood loss (64.29 ± 39.19 vs 163.43 ± 251.20 mL; p = 0.011) in the vNOTES group. Regression analysis showed the diameter of the ovarian cyst correlated with surgical time. The complication was comparable between the two groups.
conclusionAbove all, the advantages of vNOTES include an absence of visible scars, shorter surgical duration, and less blood loss when compared with LESS. Further large-scale prospective trials should confirm the results of our study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.