Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38440153›Full record

ReviewAJOG global reports2024

Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery vs laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Greg J Marchand, Ahmed Taher Masoud, Hollie Ulibarri, Amanda Arroyo, Carmen Moir, Madison Blanco, Daniela Gonzalez Herrera, Brooke Hamilton, Kate Ruffley, Mary Petersen and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AJOG global reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Review of Robotic vNOTES Surgery: Current Applications, Advantages, and Future Directions.Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Greg J MarchandMarchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery (Drs Marchand and Masoud and Mses Ulibarri, Arroyo, Moir, Blanco, Gonzalez Herrera, Hamilton, and Ruffley), Mesa, AZ.
Ahmed Taher MasoudMarchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery (Drs Marchand and Masoud and Mses Ulibarri, Arroyo, Moir, Blanco, Gonzalez Herrera, Hamilton, and Ruffley), Mesa, AZ.
Hollie UlibarriMarchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery (Drs Marchand and Masoud and Mses Ulibarri, Arroyo, Moir, Blanco, Gonzalez Herrera, Hamilton, and Ruffley), Mesa, AZ.
Amanda ArroyoMarchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery (Drs Marchand and Masoud and Mses Ulibarri, Arroyo, Moir, Blanco, Gonzalez Herrera, Hamilton, and Ruffley), Mesa, AZ.
Carmen MoirMarchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery (Drs Marchand and Masoud and Mses Ulibarri, Arroyo, Moir, Blanco, Gonzalez Herrera, Hamilton, and Ruffley), Mesa, AZ.
Madison BlancoMarchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery (Drs Marchand and Masoud and Mses Ulibarri, Arroyo, Moir, Blanco, Gonzalez Herrera, Hamilton, and Ruffley), Mesa, AZ.
Daniela Gonzalez HerreraMarchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery (Drs Marchand and Masoud and Mses Ulibarri, Arroyo, Moir, Blanco, Gonzalez Herrera, Hamilton, and Ruffley), Mesa, AZ.
Brooke HamiltonMarchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery (Drs Marchand and Masoud and Mses Ulibarri, Arroyo, Moir, Blanco, Gonzalez Herrera, Hamilton, and Ruffley), Mesa, AZ.
Kate RuffleyMarchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery (Drs Marchand and Masoud and Mses Ulibarri, Arroyo, Moir, Blanco, Gonzalez Herrera, Hamilton, and Ruffley), Mesa, AZ.
Mary PetersenMidwestern University College of Osteopathic Medicine (Mses Petersen and Fernandez), Glendale, AZ.
Sarena FernandezMidwestern University College of Osteopathic Medicine (Mses Petersen and Fernandez), Glendale, AZ.
Ali AzadiCollege of Medicine, University of Arizona (Dr Azadi), Phoenix, AZ.
Allen Institute · USMidwestern University · USIslamic Azad University, Tehran · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBecause vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques both aim to decrease tissue injury and postoperative morbidity and mortality and to improve a patient's quality of life, we sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and compared that with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic diseases. DATA SOURCES: We used Scopus, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library and searched from database inception to September 1, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all eligible articles that compared vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy with any conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy technique without robotic assistance for women with benign gynecologic pathology and that included at least 1 of our main outcomes. These outcomes included estimated blood loss (in mL), operation time (in minutes), length of hospital stay (in days), decrease in hemoglobin level (g/dL), visual analog scale pain score on postoperative day 1, opioid analgesic dose required, rate of conversion to another surgical technique, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and requirements for blood transfusion. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Ultimately, 14 studies met our criteria.

methodsThe study quality of the randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane assessment tool, and the quality of the observational studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. We analyzed data using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals under the inverse variance analysis method. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using OpenMeta[Analyst] and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported.

resultsThe operative time and length of hospitalization were shorter in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery cohort. We also found lower visual analog scale pain scores, fewer postoperative complications, and fewer blood transfusions in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group. We found no difference in the estimated blood loss, decrease in hemoglobin levels, analgesic usage, conversion rates, or intraoperative complications.

conclusionWhen evaluating the latest data, it seems that vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery techniques may have some advantages over conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques.

Indexed as

hysterectomylaparoscopyvNOTES

Identifiers

PMID38440153
PMCPMC10910317
OpenAlexW4391642506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.