Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy for benign indications.

Objective: As the second most common surgery performed on women in the United States, hysterectomy techniques are constantly examined for validity and superiority. The vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) has increased in popularity since the first vNOTES hysterectomy was performed in 2012. We sought out to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of hysterectomy by vNOTES compared to conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications. Data sources: We searched Scopus, Medline, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and the Cochrane Library. Our search included all studies from each respective database's inception until September 1, 2023. Study eligibility criteria: We included eligible studies that compare vNOTES hysterectomy versus conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications, and included at least one of our preselected outcomes. The main outcomes were estimated blood loss (mL), operation time (min), length of hospital stay (d), Visual Analogue Scale pain score at Day 1, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We analyzed data of our continuous outcomes using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the inverse variance analysis method. We assessed the quality of the studies using the ROBINS-I assessment tool. Results: We found 4 eligible studies to include in our analysis. Surgeon declared estimated blood loss was found to be similar in both groups (MD=-44.70 [-99.97, 10.57]; Conclusion: vNOTES seems to be associated with a nonsignificant lower surgeon declared estimated blood loss. We found no other significant differences in hospital stay, intraoperative, or postoperative outcomes. Further studies may clarify if other differences in safety or efficacy exist.