Trial reportRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2025
Comparison of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and vaginal hysterectomy for benign indications: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Worldwide research tendencies on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a bibliometric analysis.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to compare the surgical outcomes of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and conventional vaginal hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions.
methodsA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital from January 2025 to February 2025. Patients aged 40-80 who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications were included. Outcomes assessed included surgical outcomes, visual analog scale pain scores, and complication rates.
resultsA total of 144 patients were included, with 72 undergoing vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and 72 undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. No significant differences were found in demographic characteristics, surgical duration (100.8±14.1 min for vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery vs. 99.3±26.7 min for vaginal hysterectomy, p=0.646), or complication rates. The vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group had a higher rate of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (97.2 vs. 36.1%, p<0.001) and required fewer non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs postoperatively (median 2.0 vs. 3.0, p=0.003).
conclusionThis study indicates that vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery is a feasible alternative to vaginal hysterectomy for benign hysterectomies, demonstrating comparable outcomes and potential benefits in postoperative pain management. Future multi-center studies are warranted to strengthen the evidence base and explore long-term outcomes.
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.