Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic versus conventional vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for apical compartment prolapse.

The objective of this study was to compare surgical and short-term postoperative outcomes of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) versus conventional vaginal (CV) uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) surgery. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 135 patients who underwent hysterectomy with USLS via CV (n = 70) or via vNOTES (n = 65). Patients' baseline characteristics, surgical characteristics, and surgical outcomes were retrieved. The primary outcome was total operative time. Secondary outcomes include intra- and post-operative complications. Salpingectomy was performed in all vNOTES procedures and in only 27 % of conventional vaginal procedures (p < 0.005). Compared to the conventional vaginal procedures (n = 65), the vNOTES (n = 70) showed lower mean operative time and mean anesthesia time (101.4 ± 22.3 vs 125.5 ± 27.6 min and 141.4 ± 29.6 vs. 174.0 ± 32.9 min, respectively); and slightly longer median hospital stay (3 [range 2-4] vs. 2 [range 2-4] days, p < 0.05). Compared to women who underwent conventional vaginal hysterectomy with USLS, women who underwent vNOTES hysterectomy with USLS had lower incidences of intraoperative complications (6% vs. 18 %, p < 0.05) and intraoperative ureteral obstruction (0% vs. 8%, p < 0.05); and less estimated blood loss (58 ± 68 ml vs. 143 ± 87 ml, p < 0.05). vNOTES hysterectomy with USLS is associated with reduced incidence of intraoperative complications, shorter surgical and anesthesia time, and slightly longer hospital stay, compared to the traditional vaginal surgical approach. Post-operative complications during hospital stay were similar and infrequent following the two procedures.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.