Meta-analysis of Laparoendoscopic Single-site and Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Hysterectomy Compared with Multiport Hysterectomy: Real Benefits or Diminishing Returns?

ABSTRACT

Objective

Because minimally invasive hysterectomy has become increasingly performed by gynecologic surgeons, strategies to further improve outcomes have emerged, including innovations in surgical approach. We sought to evaluate the intraoperative and perioperative outcomes and success rates of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) hysterectomy in comparison with those of conventional multiport laparoscopic (MPL) hysterectomy.

Data Sources

A librarian-led search of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed for case-control, retrospective cohort, and randomized controlled trials through May 2020.

Methods of Study Selection

The inclusion criterion was publications comparing LESS or vNOTES hysterectomy with conventional MPL hysterectomy for the management of benign or malignant gynecologic disease. Four authors reviewed the abstracts and selected studies for full-text review. The manuscripts were reviewed, separately, by 2 authors for final inclusion and assessment of bias using either the risk-of-bias assessment tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion with, or arbitration by, a third reviewer. The titles of 2259 articles were screened, and 108 articles were chosen for abstract screening. Full-text screening resulted in 29 studies eligible for inclusion.

Tabulation, Integration, and Results

Extracted data were placed into REDCap (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN), and MPL hysterectomy was compared with single-port hysterectomy using meta-analysis models. The outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL); operative (OP) time; transfusion; length of hospital stay (LOS); conversion to laparotomy; visual analog scale pain scores at 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours; any complications; and 7 subcategories of complications. Random-effects models were built for continuous outcomes and binary outcomes, and the results are reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals, respectively. Meta-analysis could not be performed for vNOTES vs MPL, given that only 3 studies met the eligibility criteria. When LESS and MPL were compared, there was a shorter OP time for MPL (SMD = –0.2577, p <.001) and lower rate of transfusion (OR = 0.1697, p <.001), without a significant difference in EBL (SMD = –0.0243, p = .689). There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher risk of conversion to laparotomy in the MPL group (OR = 2.5871, p = .078). Pain scores were no different 12 or 24 hours postoperatively but were significantly higher at 48 hours postoperatively (SMD = 0.1861, p = .035) in the MPL group. There were no differences in overall or individual complications between the LESS and MPL groups. In the vNOTES comparison, 2 studies demonstrated shorter OP times, with reduced LOS and no difference in complications.

Conclusion

In this meta-analysis, we identified that LESS hysterectomy has comparable and low overall rates of complications and conversion to laparotomy compared with MPL. Notably, the OP time seems longer, and the pain scores at 48 hours may be lower with LESS hysterectomy than with MPL hysterectomy. Limited data suggest that vNOTES hysterectomy may have shorter OP times and improved EBL, transfusion rates, LOS, and pain scores compared with MPL hysterectomy, but further study is needed. There remains a deficit in high-quality data to understand the differences in cosmesis among these surgical approaches. The quality of data for this analysis seems to be low to moderate.