Comparative analysis of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoendoscopic single-site sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: A propensity score matching study.

Abstract

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic sacrocolpopexy (vNOTES-SC) and laparoendoscopic single-site sacrocolpopexy (LESS-SC) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).<h4>Method</h4>Ninety-four patients with POP who underwent vNOTES-SC or LESS-SC from October 2016 to November 2018 were included. The propensity score matching method was used for 1:1 matching between the two surgery groups. After matching, the general perioperative indicators, surgical complications, and the subjective and objective therapeutic effects of the two groups 3 years post-surgery were analyzed.<h4>Results</h4>After matching, 36 patients in each group were included, exhibiting balanced and comparable baseline data and an average follow-up of 48.6 ± 7.44 months. The operation time and postoperative hospitalization days were significantly reduced in the vNOTES-SC group (P < 0.05). However, perioperative complication incidence was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). Additionally, no significant differences were detected in de novo stress urinary incontinence (16.7% vs. 13.9%), de novo overactive bladder (de novo OAB, 8.3% vs. 0.0%), urination disorder (2.8% vs. 0.0%), defecation disorder (0.0% vs. 2.8%), lumbosacral pain (0.0% vs. 2.8%), or mesh complication (2.8% vs. 5.6%) incidences between the vNOTES-SC and LESS-SC groups (P > 0.05). Prolapse recurrence was not reported in either group. The quantitative description of pelvic organ position (POP-Q), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I) scores showed improvement after the operation, but no significant differences were observed between the two groups (P > 0.05).<h4>Conclusion</h4>The 3-year follow-up revealed that vNOTES-SC and LESS-SC had similar complications and efficacy rates. Compared with LESS-SC, vNOTES-SC resulted in shorter operation time and fewer postoperative hospitalization days (corresponding to the enhanced recovery after surgery [ERAS] concept), along with better cosmetic results without a scar. Therefore, our study findings suggest that clinicians should choose the surgery method based on the specific situation, and we recommend choosing vNOTES-SC when both surgeries are suitable.