Enabling Technologies for Gynecologic Vaginal Surgery: A Systematic Review

Sunil Balgobin, Ethan M. Balk, Anne E. Porter, Meenal Misal, Tamara Grisales, Kate V. Meriwether, Peter C. Jeppson, Paula J. Doyle, Sarit O. Aschkenazi, Jeannine M. Miranne, Deslyn T. Hobson, David L. Howard, Saifuddin Mama, Ankita Gupta, Danielle D. Antosh

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature to evaluate clinical and surgical outcomes for technologies that facilitate vaginal surgical procedures.

DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1990 to May 2022.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Comparative and single-arm studies with data on contemporary tools or technologies facilitating intraoperative performance of vaginal gynecologic surgical procedures for benign indications were included. Citations were independently double screened, and eligible full-text articles were extracted by two reviewers. Data collected included study characteristics, technology, patient demographics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Risk of bias for comparative studies was assessed using established methods, and restricted maximum likelihood model meta-analyses were conducted as indicated.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: The search yielded 8,658 abstracts, with 116 eligible studies that evaluated pedicle sealing devices (n=32), nonrobotic and robotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (n=64), suture capture devices (n=17), loop ligatures (n=2), and table-mounted telescopic cameras (n=1). Based on 19 comparative studies, pedicle sealing devices lowered vaginal hysterectomy operative time by 15.9 minutes (95% CI, -23.3 to -85), blood loss by 36.9 mL (95% CI, -56.9 to -17.0), hospital stay by 0.2 days (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.1), and visual analog scale pain scores by 1.4 points on a subjective 10-point scale (95% CI, -1.7 to -1.1). Three nonrandomized comparative studies and 53 single-arm studies supported the feasibility of nonrobotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for hysterectomy, adnexal surgery, pelvic reconstruction, and myomectomy. Data were limited for robotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, suture capture devices, loop ligatures, and table-mounted cameras due to few studies or study heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION: Pedicle sealing devices lower operative time and blood loss for vaginal hysterectomy, with modest reductions in hospital stay and pain scores. Although other technologies identified in the literature may have potential to facilitate vaginal surgical procedures and improve outcomes, additional comparative effectiveness research is needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42022327490.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)524-537
Number of pages14
JournalObstetrics and Gynecology
Volume143
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2024

Keywords

  • Female
  • Humans
  • Hysterectomy/methods
  • Hysterectomy, Vaginal/methods
  • Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/methods
  • Vagina/surgery
  • Laparoscopy/methods
  • Pain
  • Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery/methods

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Enabling Technologies for Gynecologic Vaginal Surgery: A Systematic Review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this