TABLE 2.
Perioperative and post-operative outcome of vNOTES in our case series, and comparison with previous studies by Beakelant et al. (14), Su et al. (16), Lee et al. (15), and Wang et al. (13).
| Italian group (n = 46) |
Baecklendant et al. (14) (n = 10) |
Su et al. (16) (n = 16) |
Lee et al. (15) (n = 137) |
Wang et al. (13) (n = 20) |
|
| Operative time (mean ± SD) | 91.1 (32.6) | 97 (23.8) p = ns |
122.7 (17.6) p < 0.001 |
88.2 (4.1) p = ns |
86.3 (23.7) p = ns |
| Uterine weight (mean ± SD) | 250.39 (209.1) | 51 (358) p = 0.02 |
538.8 (102.9) p = 0.0001 |
450.0 (24.1) p = 0.0001 |
352 (159) p = ns |
| Hb drop 24 h (mean ± SD) | 1.2 (0.8) | 1.5 (0.6) p = ns |
1.9 (1.8) p = 0.001 |
1.2 (0.1) p = ns |
– |
| VAS score 24 h (mean ± SD) | 3.3 (1.8) | 1.7 (0.5) p = 0.007 |
– | – | – |
| Leigh of stay (mean ± SD) | 2.0 (1.4) | 3 (0) p < 0.001 |
2.8 (0.2) P < 0.001 |
2.8 (0.1) p < 0.001 |
2.2 (0.5) p = ns |
| Post-operative complication (n, %) | 2 (4.3%) | 2 (20%) p = ns |
0 p = ns |
5 (3.6%) p = ns |
0 – |
| Conversion rate (n, %) | 2 (4.3%) | 0 p = ns |
0 p = ns |
7 (5.1%) p = ns |
1 (5%) p = ns |
The data were analyzed statistically by RM-one-way-ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons and Chi-square test (p < 0.05).