Postoperative outcomes and quality of life following hysterectomy by natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) compared to laparoscopy in women with a non-prolapsed uterus and benign gynaecological disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jan Baekelandt, Peter A. De Mulder, Ilse Le Roy, Chantal Mathieu, Annouschka Laenen, Paul Enzlin, Steven Weyers, Ben W J Mol, Jan J A Bosteels

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To critically appraise studies comparing benefits and harms in women with benign disease without prolapse undergoing hysterectomy by natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) versus laparoscopy. Study design We followed the PRISMA guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and cohort studies comparing NOTES with laparoscopy assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) or total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in women bound to undergo removal of a non-prolapsed uterus for benign disease. Two authors searched and selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias independently. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or arbitration. Results We did not find RCTs but retrieved two retrospective cohort studies comparing NOTES with LAVH. The study quality as assessed by the Newcastle–Ottawa scale was acceptable. Both studies reported no conversions. The operative time in women treated by NOTES was shorter compared to LAVH: the mean difference (MD) was −22.04 min (95% CI −28.00 min to −16.08 min; 342 women; 2 studies). There were no differences for complications in women treated by NOTES compared to LAVH: the risk ratio (RR) was 0.57 (95% CI 0.17–1.91; 342 women; 2 studies). The length of stay was shorter in women treated by NOTES versus LAVH: the MD was −0.42 days (95% CI −0.59 days to −0.25 days; 342 women; 2 studies). There were no differences for the median VAS scores at 12 h between women treated by NOTES (median 2, range 0–6) or by LAVH (median 2, range 0–6) (48 women, 1 study). There were no differences in the median additional analgesic dose request in women treated by NOTES (median 0, range 0–6) or by LAVH (median 1, range 0–5) (48 women, 1 study). The hospital charges for treatment by NOTES were higher compared to LAVH: the mean difference was 137.00 € (95% CI 88.95–185.05 €; 294 women; 1 study). Conclusions At the present NOTES should be considered as a technique under evaluation for use in gynaecological surgery. RCTs are needed to demonstrate its effectiveness.

LanguageEnglish
Pages6-15
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Volume208
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2017

Keywords

  • Comparative studies
  • Laparoscopic hysterectomy
  • Laparoscopy assisted hysterectomy
  • NOTES
  • Randomised controlled trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Cite this