ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2024
What is the applicability of tubal ligation with the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery technique and its value in patient comfort?
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to observe the feasibility of the tubal/adnexal approach using vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and compare its contribution with surgeon ergonomics and postoperative patient comfort with that of conventional laparoscopy.
methodsWe completed this study retrospectively with 47 patients. Patients were followed at their postoperative first month. We analyzed the usability of the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery method over conventional laparoscopy by comparing the demographics, surgical data, and postoperative findings collected between the two groups.
resultsPatients in the conventional laparoscopy group were older (39.1±3.3 years) than those in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery patient group (p=0.005). Pain intensity 24 h after surgery was lower in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group (p=0.003), while sexual function and dyspareunia did not differ between the two groups in the first month. Patients in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group were more relieved about painlessness and the comfort it brought than the conventional laparoscopy group (p=0.027, χ2=12.56).
conclusionPatients subjected to the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery procedure showed higher levels of satisfaction, less postoperative pain, and greater comfort than those subjected to conventional laparoscopy.
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.