Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Assisted Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery Hysterectomy; Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial.
OBJECTIVE: To compare Vaginal Hysterectomy (VH) with Vaginal Assisted Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) hysterectomy (VANH) as a day-care procedure. DESIGN: Single-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two Dutch non-academic teaching hospitals. POPULATION: Women aged ≥ 18 years undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. METHODS: Women were randomised 1:2 (VH or VANH). Primary outcome was SDD. Secondary outcomes included operative time, rate of elective salpingectomies, intraoperative blood loss, complications (Clavien-Dindo), pain scores (NRS) and analgesic use, post-operative recovery (RI-10), and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were included in the analyses (n = 42 VH, and n = 71 VANH). SDD occurred significantly more frequently in the VANH group (87.3%) than VH group (71.4%; OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.04-7.25; p = 0.04). VANH was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (median 55 min versus 65 min; p = 0.005), less blood loss (median 50 mL vs. 150 mL; p < 0.001) and more often elective opportunistic salpingectomy compared to VH (100% vs. 77.4%; p = 0.008). NRS were significantly lower in the VANH group the first hour post-operative (3 vs. 1, p < 0.001). Post-operative complications (VH 9.5% vs. VANH 15.5%; p = 0.34), readmission (VH 4.8% vs. VANH 8.5%; p = 0.47), analgesic use, recovery, and quality of life were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: VANH is a safe and effective alternative to VH, offering a higher likelihood of SDD, shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and more often an elective salpingectomy, without increased complications or differences in pain, recovery, or quality of life.