ArticleBMC surgery2025
Analysis of feasibility, effectiveness and safety of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery(vNOTES) of ectopic pregnancy: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of sexual function, urinary symptoms, bowel function, postoperative pain, and cosmetic satisfaction after vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and total laparoscopic hysterectomy.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Emergency Surgical Management of Ectopic Pregnancy Using Transvaginal NOTES (vNOTES) versus Laparoscopy: A Comparative Single-Surgeon Cohort Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Analysis of the learning curve for transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in ovarian cystectomy.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundvNOTES has been documented as a viable approach for conducting benign gynecologic surgery; however, its application in ectopic pregnancy cases remains relatively scarce. The principal objective of this investigation was to assess the practicability, effectiveness, and safety of vNOTES in surgical procedures related to ectopic pregnancy.
methodsClinical data pertaining to patients diagnosed with ectopic pregnancy at Beijing Hospital between January 2018 and August 2023 were retrospectively collected (This study retrospectively registered with the China Clinical Trial Registry with the registration number ChiCTR2100052223 in September 22, 2021.). Based on the surgical technique employed, participants were categorized into two groups: the vNOTES group (29 cases) and the conventional laparoscopy (CL) group (34 cases). The baseline data, including age, body mass index (BMI), parity, and maximum diameter of pregnancy objects, were collected and analyzed, along with intraoperative indicators such as operation time and intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative indicators including postoperative exhaust time, hospital stays after surgery, and postoperative pain score at 24 h.
resultsA total of 73 patients were included in this study, and all surgeries in both groups were performed according to the assigned procedures. There were no statistically significant differences observed in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stays between the vNOTES group and the CL group (P > 0.05). However, the vNOTES group exhibited significantly lower postoperative exhaust time and 24-hour VAS scores compared to the CL group (P < 0.05).
conclusionsvNOTES proves to be a safe and effective approach for performing conservative tubal festration or salpingectomy in cases of tubal pregnancy. Furthermore, vNOTES offers a more minimally invasive surgical technique, resulting in reduced postoperative pain in patients.
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.