ArticleBMC women's health2026
Comparison of conventional multiport laparoscopy, single-port laparoscopy, and vNOTES for the management of large adnexal masses (≥ 10 cm): a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC women's health, 2026. 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.
- Postoperative pain after vNOTES versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: A procedure-specific comparative study.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe compared the surgical outcomes and quality of recovery of conventional multiport laparoscopy (CML), Single-port laparoscopy (SPL), and vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) for managing large adnexal masses.
methodsThis multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 87 patients who underwent salpingo-oophorectomy for benign adnexal masses ≥ 10 cm between January 2020 and December 2025 (CML: n = 38, SPL: n = 26, vNOTES: n = 23). The evaluated parameters included surgical timing (port setup, total operation, and specimen removal times), early postoperative pain using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Faces Pain Scale Revised (FPS-R), and overall quality of recovery using the QoR-40 questionnaire at 24 h postoperatively. The secondary outcomes included cosmetic scar satisfaction and sexual function.
resultsCML demonstrated the shortest port setup time (2.5 ± 0.5 min) and total operation time (61.0 ± 14.7 min) among the groups. In contrast, vNOTES and SPL provided significantly faster specimen removal times than CML (6.1 ± 1.8 min and 6.6 ± 1.3 min vs. 9.3 ± 2.2 min, respectively; P < 0.001). The vNOTES group reported significantly lower VAS and FPS-R scores across all early postoperative time points (6, 12, and 24 h) and achieved the highest overall QoR-40 score (153.5 ± 9.7, P = 0.004). Multivariate logistic regression identified the vNOTES approach as the only independent predictor of excellent recovery (QoR-40 ≥ 150) (odds ratio [OR]: 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-3.1, P = 0.012). No significant differences were observed in terms of estimated blood loss, intraoperative complications, or long-term sexual function among the three groups.
conclusionCML, SPL, and vNOTES are safe and effective minimally invasive approaches for large adnexal masses. While CML is the fastest overall, vNOTES appeared to offer benefits including efficient specimen extraction, reduced postoperative pain, and enhanced quality of recovery. Given the retrospective design, the modest sample size, and the patient-preference-based allocation, these findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and confirmed in adequately powered prospective studies.
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.