Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40205364›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025

Gasless vNOTES vs. traditional vNOTES for benign gynecological disease: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Yanjun Wang, Kai Liu, Zhaolin Gong, Qinghua Huang, Qianqian Zhang, Dan Feng, Jiaojiao Chen, Ang Mao, Xia Yu, Lin Zhang and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

13 authors.

Yanjun Wang *Department of Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Kai Liu *Department of Gynecology Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Zhaolin Gong *Department of Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Qinghua HuangDepartment of Gynecology Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Qianqian ZhangDepartment of Gynecology Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Dan FengDepartment of Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Jiaojiao ChenDepartment of Operating Room, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Ang MaoDepartment of Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Xia YuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Lin ZhangDepartment of Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Yu CuiDepartment of Gynecology Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China. cuiyu19831001@163.com.
Li HeDepartment of Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China. helisichuan@163.com.
Yonghong LinDepartment of Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China. linyhcd2011@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGasless transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (G-vNOTES) can avoid complications related to pneumoperitoneum, but there is limited research on G-vNOTES. Here, we aimed to compare the hemodynamic profiles and outcomes of G-vNOTES with traditional vNOTES (T-vNOTES) in the treatment of patients with benign gynecologic disease.

methodsA total of 120 patients with benign gynecologic disease were randomly assigned to G-vNOTES (n = 60) or traditional vNOTES (n = 60). The primary outcome was vital sign at different time points. Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, surgical time, anesthesia time, the usage of anesthetics, estimated intraoperative blood loss, visual analogue scale (VAS) score for abdominal and shoulder pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) at 2 and 24 h, intraoperative and postoperative complications, time to first anal exhaust, eating, and getting out of bed after surgery, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Multi-level model analysis was used for intraoperative hemodynamic indicators.

resultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups at the baseline level. The results of the multilevel model indicate that there is no difference in intraoperative hemodynamic performance between the G-vNOTE group and the T-vNOTES group. The conversion rate in the G-vNOTES group was higher than that in the T-vNOTES group (16.95% vs. 5.26%, p = 0.046). No significant differences were observed in other areas.

conclusionsThis study did not find advantages of gasless vNOTES in intraoperative hemodynamic fluctuations. The surgical conversion rate of the G-vNOTES group is higher than that of the T-vNOTES group, which may be related to poor surgical field exposure in the G-vNOTES group, making it more suitable for experienced and confident surgeons.

Indexed as

Genital Diseases, FemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryAdultFemaleHemodynamicsHumansLength of StayMiddle AgedOperative TimeVaginaBenign gynecological diseaseGasless vNOTESPneumoperitoneumTransvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES)

Identifiers

PMID40205364
PMCPMC11983730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.