ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Transvaginal Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic hysterectomy vs. abdominal laparoscopic approach in real-life practices: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complex vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy for symptomatic giant polymyomatous uteri in nulliparous women.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Safety and Feasibility of Vaginal Natural Orifice Surgery Hysterectomy for Enlarged Uteri.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to retrospectively evaluate the surgical outcomes of total hysterectomy performed via Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy (LAP) in treating benign gynecologic conditions in a real-world clinical setting.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at Galilee Medical Center, Israel, between March 2021 and 2023. A total of 133 women were included in the study. The vNOTES group comprised 58 women, while 75 women underwent LAP. All women eligible for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign conditions were offered the vNOTES approach. Exclusion criteria included prior pelvic radiation, active genital infections, rectovaginal endometriosis, or the need for oncogynecologic surgery related to malignancy.
resultsThe vNOTES group demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (69.5 vs. 117.4 min, p < 0.001) and anesthesia durations (102 vs. 146.3 min, p < 0.001), as well as reduced blood loss (108.6 mL vs. 237.9 mL, p < 0.001) compared to the LAP group. Postoperative pain, assessed by VAS scores, was significantly lower in the vNOTES group than in the LAP group (2.33 vs. 3.11, p = 0.013), with fewer requests for intravenous analgesics. No significant differences were observed between the groups in complication rates, conversion to laparotomy, or postoperative hospital stays.
conclusionThe vNOTES hysterectomy demonstrated shorter operative and anesthesia times, reduced blood loss, lower postoperative pain, and intravenous analgesic requirements compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy, without increasing complication rates. These findings suggest that vNOTES offers a viable, minimally invasive alternative to conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy for the treatment of benign gynecologic conditions. Further prospective studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes and the impact on quality of life.
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.