ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Three surgical approaches for retroperitoneal transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES).
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, advantages, and limitations of three surgical approaches performed through the anterior, lateral, and posterior vaginal fornix for retroperitoneal transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES). Method: We included women who underwent vNOTES retroperitoneal surgery between January 2019 and September 2025. The anterior, lateral, and posterior vaginal fornix approaches were used for retroperitoneal vNOTES. Demographic data, operative characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were retrospectively evaluated. Results: A total of 89 patients successfully underwent vNOTES retroperitoneal surgery. The surgical approaches included 13 procedures via the anterior fornix, 16 via the lateral fornix, and 60 via the posterior fornix. The anterior fornix approach was primarily used for lateral suspension for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). All procedures were completed safely, with the longest follow-up exceeding 2 years, and no cases of mesh exposure were observed. Overall, three patients (23.08%) experienced Grade I complications. The lateral fornix approach was primarily used for lymphadenectomy, and all procedures were completed safely. A total of four cases (25.00%) of Grade I complications and one case (6.25%) of Grade II complications were recorded. The posterior fornix approach was primarily used for sacrocolpopexy and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF), with all procedures completed safely. In the sacrocolpopexy group, three Grade I complications (30.77%) and one Grade III complication (7.69%) were observed. In the SSLF group, eight Grade I complications (17.02%) were recorded. Conclusion: In this retrospective study, retroperitoneal vNOTES was demonstrated to be a safe and feasible approach. By using different vaginal fornix incisions, it can be adapted to a wide range of procedures, including surgeries for POP and resection of both pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes.
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.