Systematic review and meta-analysis on hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (Vnotes) compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications

98Citations
Citations of this article
105Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

(1) Objective: We aimed to report an update of the systematic review and meta-analysis by Baekelandt et al. (2016). (2) Method: We followed PRISMA guidelines to perform this systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and additional sources and aimed to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and prospective/retrospective cohort studies in human subjects that allowed direct comparison of vNOTES to laparoscopy. (3) Results: Our search yielded one RCT and five retrospective cohort trials. Pooled analysis of two subgroups showed that, compared to conventional laparoscopy, vNOTES is equally effective to successfully remove the uterus in individuals meeting the inclusion criteria. vNOTES had significantly lower values for operation time, length of stay and estimated blood loss. There was no significant difference in intra-and postoperative complications, readmission, pain scores at 24 h postoperative and change in hemoglobin (Hb) on day 1 postoperative.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Housmans, S., Noori, N., Kapurubandara, S., Bosteels, J. J. A., Cattani, L., Alkatout, I., … Baekelandt, J. (2020, December 1). Systematic review and meta-analysis on hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (Vnotes) compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Journal of Clinical Medicine. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9123959

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free