Vaginal Hysterectomy: A Network-Meta-analysis Comparing Short-Term Outcomes of Surgical Techniques and Devices

ObjectiveTo provide available evidence comparing surgical outcomes of different vaginal hysterectomy (VH) techniques and devices.Data SourcesPubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from inception to December 1, 2023, using relevant keywords.Methods of Study SelectionStudies comparing at least 2 surgical techniques and devices for VH were included. An arm-based random effect frequentist network meta-analysis was performed. All available surgical outcomes were evaluated.Tabulation, Integration, and ResultsTen randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies were eligible reporting on 1577 women undergoing VH with different techniques and devices (50% conventional, 22.5% Ligasure, 17.3% BiClamp, and 9.2% transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery [vNOTES]). All surgical techniques/devices had a comparable risk ratio (RR) in terms of intraoperative complications, but Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications were significantly reduced in the vNOTES group (RR, 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03–0.82; I2 = 0%) compared with conventional VH. The pooled network analysis showed a lower standard mean deviation for blood loss when comparing energy-based vessel sealing technologies (Ligasure: standard mean deviation, −0.92; 95% CI, −1.47 to −0.37; BiClamp: standard mean deviation, −1.66; 95% CI, −2.77 to −0.55) with conventional VH. Total operative time, postoperative hemoglobin variation, and pain were significantly reduced only in the Ligasure group compared with conventional VH. Bilateral salpingectomy or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was most commonly performed in the vNOTES group (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.17–3.10) compared with the conventional VH group.ConclusionModern surgical techniques/devices have the potential to improve anatomic exposure and to reduce morbidity of VH. This may drive resurgence of vaginal approach to hysterectomy.