Comparison of Major Clinical Outcomes Between Transvaginal NOTES and Traditional Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: The advent of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (transvaginal NOTES) aims to minimize surgical trauma and reduce recovery time.

Materials and methods: Clinical trials comparing transvaginal NOTES and traditional laparoscopy were identified by searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science (from 2004 to March 2018). Major outcomes evaluated were risk of postoperative complications and secondary outcomes were pain on postoperative day (POD) 1, POD2, and POD3, time needed for full recovery, risk of intraoperative complications, the duration of surgery, and hospital stay. The results of the meta-analysis are presented as standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Thirteen trials with 1340 patients were identified. There were no statistical differences for risk of complications between transvaginal NOTES and traditional laparoscopy (intraoperative complications: RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; P = 0.37; postoperative complication: RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.01; P = 0.148). The pain score was lower in transvaginal NOTES on POD1 (SMD: -0.71, 95% CI: -1.30 to -0.11, P = 0.019), on POD2 (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.07; P = 0.018), and on POD3 (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.23; P < 0.001). Patients in transvaginal NOTES needed much shorter time to fully recover after surgery (SMD -1.36, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.87; P < 0.001). In addition, patients underwent transvaginal NOTES had less pain and shorter time of recovery.

Conclusions: It is recommended that patients have cholecystectomy, adnexectomy, and appendectomy using transvaginal NOTES as it is safe and minimally invasive.

Keywords: Complications; Pain reduction; Traditional laparoscopy; Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.