ArticleBMC anesthesiology2023
Impact of gasless vNOTES vs. traditional vNOTES on hemodynamic profiles and outcomes in patients with benign gynecological disease: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gasless vNOTES vs. traditional vNOTES for benign gynecological disease: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Effect of Shoulder Movement Routine on Postoperative Shoulder Pain in Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Trial
- Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) for hysterectomy strategic repositioning of the vaginal route through technological evolution and emerging surgical variants.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2026Review
- Early experience with the gasless vNOTES technique for adnexal surgery.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Observational
- Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome in twins with discordant phenotypes: a case report and review of the literature.Journal of medical case reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiterature regarding the advantages of gasless vNOTES is insufficient. The aim of our study is to compare gasless vNOTES vs. traditional vNOTES on hemodynamic profiles and outcomes in patients with benign gynecological disease. We hypothesize that compared with those in the traditional vNOTES group, hemodynamic profiles will be changed less during gasless vNOTES, while safety can be promised.
methodsThis is a single-center, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial, which has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chengdu Women's and Children's Hospital on September 27, 2022. One hundred and twenty patients will be recruited and randomly assigned to either the traditional vNOTES group or the gasless vNOTES group in a 1:1 ratio. For patients allocated to the traditional vNOTES group, after insertion of one port through the vagina, CO DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare the impacts of gasless vNOTES vs. traditional vNOTES on hemodynamic profiles and outcomes in patients with benign gynecological disease. If a favorable effect and safety of gasless vNOTES for hemodynamic profiles and outcomes in patients are shown, gasless vNOTES would be an optimal treatment option for patients with benign gynecological disease.
trial registrationThe trial was registered at https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=182441 with registration No. ChiCTR2200064779 on Oct 17, 2022.
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.