针对良性指征,经阴道自然腔道内镜手术子宫切除术与经阴道子宫切除术的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy for benign indications.
作者信息
Marchand Greg J, Ulibarri Hollie, Arroyo Amanda, Blanco Madison, Herrera Daniela Gonzalez, Hamilton Brooke, Ruffley Kate, Azadi Ali
机构信息
Marchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Mesa, AZ (Marchand, Ulibarri, Arroyo, Blanco, Herrera, Hamilton, and Ruffley).
University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ (Azadi).
出版信息
AJOG Glob Rep. 2024 May 10;4(2):100355. doi: 10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100355. eCollection 2024 May.
OBJECTIVE
As the second most common surgery performed on women in the United States, hysterectomy techniques are constantly examined for validity and superiority. The vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) has increased in popularity since the first vNOTES hysterectomy was performed in 2012. We sought out to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of hysterectomy by vNOTES compared to conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications.
DATA SOURCES
We searched Scopus, Medline, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and the Cochrane Library. Our search included all studies from each respective database's inception until September 1, 2023.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included eligible studies that compare vNOTES hysterectomy versus conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications, and included at least one of our preselected outcomes. The main outcomes were estimated blood loss (mL), operation time (min), length of hospital stay (d), Visual Analogue Scale pain score at Day 1, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
We analyzed data of our continuous outcomes using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the inverse variance analysis method. We assessed the quality of the studies using the ROBINS-I assessment tool.
RESULTS
We found 4 eligible studies to include in our analysis. Surgeon declared estimated blood loss was found to be similar in both groups (MD=-44.70 [-99.97, 10.57]; =.11). Also, the total length of hospital stay (in days) was found to be comparable in both groups (MD=-0.16 [-1.62, 1.30]; =.83). We also found no other statistically significant difference between hysterectomy by vNOTES and vaginal hysterectomy in other studied outcomes, including the duration of the operation, the Visual Analogue Scale Pain score after 1 day, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications.
CONCLUSION
vNOTES seems to be associated with a nonsignificant lower surgeon declared estimated blood loss. We found no other significant differences in hospital stay, intraoperative, or postoperative outcomes. Further studies may clarify if other differences in safety or efficacy exist.
目的
子宫切除术作为美国女性接受的第二常见手术,其技术一直在接受有效性和优越性方面的审查。自2012年首例经阴道自然腔道内镜手术(vNOTES)子宫切除术开展以来,该手术越来越受欢迎。我们旨在评估与传统经阴道子宫切除术相比,vNOTES子宫切除术治疗各种良性疾病的安全性和有效性。
数据来源
我们检索了Scopus、Medline、PubMed、ClinicalTrials.Gov和Cochrane图书馆。检索范围包括各数据库自创建至2023年9月1日的所有研究。
研究纳入标准
我们纳入了比较vNOTES子宫切除术与传统经阴道子宫切除术治疗各种良性疾病且至少包含一项我们预先选定结局的合格研究。主要结局包括估计失血量(毫升)、手术时间(分钟)、住院天数、术后第1天的视觉模拟评分疼痛评分、术中并发症及术后并发症。
研究评估与综合方法
我们使用RevMan 5.4.1分析连续变量结局的数据。连续变量结局采用逆方差分析方法,以均数差(MD)和95%置信区间(CI)进行分析。我们使用ROBINS-I评估工具评估研究质量。
结果
我们发现4项合格研究纳入分析。外科医生宣称的估计失血量在两组中相似(MD=-44.70 [-99.97, 10.57];P =.11)。此外,两组的总住院天数相当(MD=-0.16 [-1.62, 1.30];P =.83)。我们还发现,在其他研究结局方面,包括手术时长、术后第1天的视觉模拟评分疼痛评分、术中并发症及术后并发症,vNOTES子宫切除术与经阴道子宫切除术之间无其他统计学显著差异。
结论
vNOTES似乎与外科医生宣称的估计失血量略低但无显著差异相关。我们未发现住院时间、术中或术后结局存在其他显著差异。进一步研究可能会阐明在安全性或有效性方面是否存在其他差异。