ArticleBMC women's health2026
Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus conventional multiport laparoscopy for hemorrhagic ovarian cyst rupture with hemoperitoneum: a multicenter 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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare perioperative outcomes, postoperative pain, early recovery, and patient-reported sexual and cosmetic outcomes between vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) and conventional multiport laparoscopy (CML) in hemodynamically stable women undergoing surgery for hemorrhagic ovarian cyst rupture with hemoperitoneum.
methodsDesign Multicenter retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
settingDepartments of Obstetrics and Gynecology of two tertiary referral centers, January 2020 to December 2025.
participantsForty-two non-pregnant women aged ≥18 years with imaging-confirmed hemoperitoneum from a ruptured ovarian cyst and clinical evidence of ongoing bleeding undergoing minimally invasive surgery.
interventionsvNOTES via posterior colpotomy with a multichannel single-port device (n = 13) versus CML with a 10-mm umbilical and two or three 5-mm ancillary trocars (n = 29). Both arms used a standardized Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol.
resultsPrimary outcomes were operative time, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) pain at 6, 12, and 24 hours, length of stay, and Quality of Recovery-15 score at discharge. Secondary outcomes included complications (Clavien-Dindo), conversion, transfusion, additional analgesia, and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and Female Genital Self-Image Scale (FGSIS) scores at 6 months. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Operative time (44.6 ± 17.1 vs 49.1 ± 16.5 min; p = .20), blood loss (124.0 ± 116.3 vs 132.8 ± 127.1 mL; p = .72), transfusion (7.7% vs 6.9%; p = .92), and intraoperative complications (7.7% vs 6.8%; p = .93) did not differ, and no conversion to laparotomy occurred. VAS pain at 12 hours was lower after vNOTES (1.9 ± 0.7 vs 3.2 ± 1.1; p = .002). FGSIS favored vNOTES (24.28 ± 1.80 vs 22.31 ± 3.47; p = .009), whereas FSFI total and domain scores, including lubrication, were comparable between groups. There were no conversions from vNOTES to conventional laparoscopy or to laparotomy. Exploratory adjusted and IPTW sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary unadjusted findings. Because approach selection was non-random, the pain and genital self-image differences cannot be causally attributed to the technique.
conclusionIn hemodynamically stable women with hemorrhagic ovarian cyst rupture, vNOTES is feasible and safe, with hemostatic efficacy comparable to CML and advantages in 12-hour pain and genital self-image. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.