ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
A comparative analysis of hysterectomy outcomes: robotic single-port vs. traditional transvaginal NOTES approaches.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic single-port (SP) vaginal hysterectomy: the first cases in Europe and surgical steps.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
- Perioperative outcomes and learning curves of minimally invasive hysterectomy: a comparative analysis of MPLH, RASPH, and SPLH.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative outcomes of robotic single-port vNOTES versus robotic-Xi assisted single-incision transumbilical surgery for hysterectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to explore the feasibility and safety of robotic single port vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (RSP-vNOTES) hysterectomy when compared with traditional vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (T-vNOTES) hysterectomy. Methods: In this study, the clinical data of 135 patients who underwent RSP-vNOTES or T-vNOTES hysterectomy performed by a single minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon from January 2017 to September 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical characteristics, surgical outcomes, perioperative complications, and postoperative pain scores were collected and analyzed. Results: A total of 79 patients underwent T-vNOTES hysterectomy and 56 patients underwent RSP-vNOTES hysterectomy. Compared to the T-vNOTES group, the RSP-vNOTES group demonstrated a lower median body mass index (27 vs. 30 kg/m Discussion: When compared to T-vNOTES hysterectomy, RSP-vNOTES hysterectomy appears more feasible and safer for surgery, especially in cases involving concurrent endometriosis resection, and warrants further consideration as a skillset in a gynecologic surgeon's toolbox. Large multicenter studies involving multiple surgeons and longer follow-up are needed to fully establish the safety and feasibility of this approach.
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.