ArticleHeliyon2023
Comparative analysis of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoendoscopic single-site sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: A propensity score matching study.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- vNOTES vs Minimally Invasive Colpopexy: National Study and Literature Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Concomitant Hysterectomy and vNOTES-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy: A Feasible and Safe Scarless Approach for Apical Prolapse Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Application of "4-P" port anchoring in transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES): technique and initial feasibility.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic single port versus robotic multiple port transvaginal orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Vaginal natural orifice transvaginal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) for benign ovarian cysts is safe and feasible in same-day discharge: a retrospective cohort study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Transvaginally Adjustable Apical Suspension and Compartment-Specific Tensioning in Vaginal Natural-Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery Sacrocolpopexy: Cadaveric and Live Patient Experience.Journal of gynecologic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic sacrocolpopexy (vNOTES-SC) and laparoendoscopic single-site sacrocolpopexy (LESS-SC) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Method: Ninety-four patients with POP who underwent vNOTES-SC or LESS-SC from October 2016 to November 2018 were included. The propensity score matching method was used for 1:1 matching between the two surgery groups. After matching, the general perioperative indicators, surgical complications, and the subjective and objective therapeutic effects of the two groups 3 years post-surgery were analyzed. Results: After matching, 36 patients in each group were included, exhibiting balanced and comparable baseline data and an average follow-up of 48.6 ± 7.44 months. The operation time and postoperative hospitalization days were significantly reduced in the vNOTES-SC group (P < 0.05). However, perioperative complication incidence was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). Additionally, no significant differences were detected in de novo stress urinary incontinence (16.7% vs. 13.9%), de novo overactive bladder (de novo OAB, 8.3% vs. 0.0%), urination disorder (2.8% vs. 0.0%), defecation disorder (0.0% vs. 2.8%), lumbosacral pain (0.0% vs. 2.8%), or mesh complication (2.8% vs. 5.6%) incidences between the vNOTES-SC and LESS-SC groups (P > 0.05). Prolapse recurrence was not reported in either group. The quantitative description of pelvic organ position (POP-Q), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I) scores showed improvement after the operation, but no significant differences were observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The 3-year follow-up revealed that vNOTES-SC and LESS-SC had similar complications and efficacy rates. Compared with LESS-SC, vNOTES-SC resulted in shorter operation time and fewer postoperative hospitalization days (corresponding to the enhanced recovery after surgery [ERAS] concept), along with better cosmetic results without a scar. Therefore, our study findings suggest that clinicians should choose the surgery method based on the specific situation, and we recommend choosing vNOTES-SC when both surgeries are suitable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.