Trial reportBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026
Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Assisted Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery Hysterectomy; Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 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
objectiveTo compare Vaginal Hysterectomy (VH) with Vaginal Assisted Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) hysterectomy (VANH) as a day-care procedure.
designSingle-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial.
settingTwo Dutch non-academic teaching hospitals. POPULATION: Women aged ≥ 18 years undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications.
methodsWomen were randomised 1:2 (VH or VANH). Primary outcome was SDD. Secondary outcomes included operative time, rate of elective salpingectomies, intraoperative blood loss, complications (Clavien-Dindo), pain scores (NRS) and analgesic use, post-operative recovery (RI-10), and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis.
resultsA total of 113 patients were included in the analyses (n = 42 VH, and n = 71 VANH). SDD occurred significantly more frequently in the VANH group (87.3%) than VH group (71.4%; OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.04-7.25; p = 0.04). VANH was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (median 55 min versus 65 min; p = 0.005), less blood loss (median 50 mL vs. 150 mL; p < 0.001) and more often elective opportunistic salpingectomy compared to VH (100% vs. 77.4%; p = 0.008). NRS were significantly lower in the VANH group the first hour post-operative (3 vs. 1, p < 0.001). Post-operative complications (VH 9.5% vs. VANH 15.5%; p = 0.34), readmission (VH 4.8% vs. VANH 8.5%; p = 0.47), analgesic use, recovery, and quality of life were not statistically significant.
conclusionsVANH is a safe and effective alternative to VH, offering a higher likelihood of SDD, shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and more often an elective salpingectomy, without increased complications or differences in pain, recovery, or 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.