Einzeltreffer — DigiBib

The aim of the case control study was to compare surgical outcomes of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system (dVSS) and conventional vNOTES. A case control study was performed on 25 cases in our hospital. Patients (n = 8) who underwent vNOTES hysterectomy with dVSS were selected to compare with the control group (n = 17) consisted of patients who underwent conventional vNOTES. Patients in the 2 groups underwent different operations respectively, and no case was transferred to transabdominal laparoscopy. In the conventional vNOTES group, 1 patient happened intraoperative hemorrhage of about 1000 mL, and was treated with blood transfusion, and the other one of vNOTES hysterectomy with dVSS had poor incision healing within 1 month after surgery. The other patients had no intraoperative and postoperative complications. The difference of pain scores on the first day (P = .006) and the third day (P = .045) after the 2 surgical methods differed significantly. No statistical differences were observed in operation time, median hospital stay, blood loss, decreased hemoglobin 3 days after surgery, and postoperative white blood cell count. vNOTES hysterectomy with dVSS is safe and feasible, and can achieve the same effect as the conventional vNOTES hysterectomy. And this method may alleviate the pain of patients.

Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Titel:	A case control study of vNOTES hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system and conventional vNOTES hysterectomy.
Autor/in / Beteiligte Person:	Zhang, C ; Liu, D ; Zhang, Q ; Li, Q ; He, L ; Lin, Y ; Ge, H
Link:	Zum Volltext
Zeitschrift:	Medicine, Jg. 103 (2024-03-08), Heft 10, S. e37323
Veröffentlichung:	Hagerstown, Md : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2024
Medientyp:	academicJournal
ISSN:	1536-5964 (electronic)
DOI:	10.1097/MD.0000000000037323
Schlagwort:	Female Humans Case-Control Studies Hysterectomy methods Blood Loss, Surgical Pain surgery Vagina surgery Retrospective Studies Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery methods Laparoscopy methods
Sonstiges:	Nachgewiesen in: MEDLINE Sprachen: English Publication Type: Journal Article Language: English [Medicine (Baltimore)] 2024 Mar 08; Vol. 103 (10), pp. e37323. MeSH Terms: Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery* / methods ; Laparoscopy* / methods ; Female ; Humans ; Case-Control Studies ; Hysterectomy / methods ; Blood Loss, Surgical ; Pain / surgery ; Vagina / surgery ; Retrospective Studies References: Cohen SL, Ajao MO, Clark NV, et al. Outpatient hysterectomy volume in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:130–7. ; Buderath P, Kimmig R, Dominowski L, et al. Hysterectomy in benign conditions: a 20-year single-center retrospective on the development of surgical techniques. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;307:807–2. ; Warren L, Ladapo J, Borah BJ, et al. Open abdominal versus laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy: analysis of a large United States payer measuring quality and cost of care. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:581–8. ; AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL position statement: route of hysterectomy to treat benign uterine disease. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:1–3. ; Rao GV, Reddy DN, Banerjee R. NOTES: human experience. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2008;18:361–70; x. ; Ahn KH, Song JY, Kim SH, et al. Transvaginal single-port natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for benign uterine adnexal pathologies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19:631–5. ; Li CB, Hua KQ. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) in gynecologic surgeries: a systematic review. Asian J Surg. 2020;43:44–51. ; Huang L, Feng D, Gu DX, et al. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in gynecological procedure: experience of a women’s and children’s medical center from China. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022;48:2926–34. ; Shin HJ, Yoo HK, Lee JH, et al. Robotic single-port surgery using the da Vinci SP® surgical system for benign gynecologic disease: a preliminary report. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59:243–7. ; Nelson RJ, Chavali JSS, Yerram N, et al. Current status of robotic single-port surgery. Urol Ann. 2017;9:217–22. ; Committee Opinion No 701: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:e155–9. ; Wang Y, Deng L, Tang S, et al. vNOTES hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer: description of technique and perioperative outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28:1254–61. ; Chaccour C, Giannini A, Golia D’Augè T, et al. Hysterectomy using vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery compared with classic laparoscopic hysterectomy: a new advantageous approach? A systematic review on surgical outcomes. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2023;88:187–96. ; Schmitt JJ, Carranza Leon DA, Occhino JA, et al. Determining optimal route of hysterectomy for benign indications: clinical decision tree algorithm. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:130–8. ; Tohic AL, Dhainaut C, Yazbeck C, et al. Hysterectomy for benign uterine pathology among women without previous vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:829–37. ; Su H, Yen CF, Wu KY, et al. Hysterectomy via transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): feasibility of an innovative approach. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;51:217–21. ; Mendise TJ, Roulette GD, von Gruenigen VE. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:593–4. ; Giannini A, D’Oria O, Bogani G, et al. Hysterectomy: let’s step up the ladder of evidence to look over the horizon. J Clin Med. 2022;11:6940. ; Liu J, Tan L, Thigpen B, et al. Evaluation of the learning curve and safety outcomes in robotic assisted vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic hysterectomy: a case series of 84 patients. Int J Med Robot. 2022;18:e2385. ; Soto E, Lo Y, Friedman K, et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus da Vinci robotic hysterectomy: is using the robot beneficial? J Gynecol Oncol. 2011;22:253–9. ; Gitas G, Alkatout I, Proppe L, et al. Surgical outcomes of conventional laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomy. Int J Med Robot. 2021;17:e2225. ; Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309:689–98. Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20240308 Date Completed: 20240311 Latest Revision: 20240506 Update Code: 20240506 PubMed Central ID: PMC10919455

Klicken Sie ein Format an und speichern Sie dann die Daten oder geben Sie eine Empfänger-Adresse ein und lassen Sie sich per Email zusenden.

BibTeX Citavi, JabRef, u.a.
(Literaturverwaltung)

PDF kein Volltext!
(Merkzettel, Notizen)

RIS Endnote, Citavi u.a.
(Literaturverwaltung)

MODS
(XML zur Weiterverarbeitung)

oder

Wählen Sie das für Sie passende Zitationsformat und kopieren Sie es dann in die Zwischenablage, lassen es sich per Mail zusenden oder speichern es als PDF-Datei.

Gewünschter Zitations-Stil:

oder

Bitte prüfen Sie, ob die Zitation formal korrekt ist, bevor Sie sie in einer Arbeit verwenden. Benutzen Sie gegebenenfalls den "Exportieren"-Dialog, wenn Sie ein Literaturverwaltungsprogramm verwenden und die Zitat-Angaben selbst formatieren wollen.

A case control study of vNOTES hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system and conventional vNOTES hysterectomy.