ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of different types of single-port laparoscopic surgery in posterior uterine fibroid resection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Obstetrical outcomes after transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for benign gynecological conditions: a prospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Complex vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy for symptomatic giant polymyomatous uteri in nulliparous women.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) in myomectomy: a novel minimally invasive technique review.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Review
- Robotic single port versus robotic multiple port transvaginal orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to objectively assess the effect of three surgical approaches for posterior uterine fibroid resection: transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) in prone position (vNOTES-P), and vNOTES in the lithotomy position (vNOTES-L). A retrospective analysis was conducted on data pertaining to all patients who underwent vNOTES and LESS for single posterior fibroids at our institution from January 2023 to July 2023. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the surgical approach: vNOTES-P group (n = 30), vNOTES-L group (n = 17), and LESS group (n = 32). Comparative analysis was performed on the demographic characteristics and perioperative outcomes among the three groups of patients. All 79 patients underwent surgery without the need for conversion to laparotomy. There were no statistically significant differences among the LESS group, vNOTES-P group, and vNOTES-L group in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and perioperative complication rates. In the vNOTES-L group, two patients required conversion to LESS during surgery. Patients had faster return of bowel function (less time to flatus) in the vNOTES group compared to the LESS group (P < 0.05). However, three cases of postoperative infection occurred in the vNOTES group, while none were reported in the LESS group. Compared to LESS, vNOTES demonstrates significant advantages in alleviating postoperative pain, shortening time to passage of flatus, speeding recovery and enhancing cosmetic outcomes. Particularly, vNOTES-P for posterior uterine fibroid resection, as an emerging surgical approach, offers certain advantages in facilitating surgical maneuverability and reducing operative time, rendering it more suitable for posterior uterine fibroid resection.
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.