Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus conventional vaginal surgery for sacrospinous ligament fixation of apical compartment prolapse: a retrospective analysis

BackgroundTo objectively assess the safety, feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) versus conventional vaginal (CV) surgery for sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent hysterectomy for SSLF via vNOTES or CV surgery due to apical compartment prolapse between April 2019 and April 2020 at our hospital. The patients were classified into the vNOTES group (n = 31) and CV surgery group (n = 51) based on surgical approach and their general characteristics and perioperative outcomes compared.ResultsThe two groups had similar general characteristics. The anatomical success and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy rates were higher in the vNOTES than CV surgery group, while the postoperative stay was shorter in the vNOTES than CV surgery group. All differences were statistically significant. However, there were no statistically significant intergroup differences in operation time, bilateral salpingectomy rate, colporrhaphy rate, postoperative visual analog scale score, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin decrease at 72 h postoperative, maximum body temperature at 72 h postoperative, complication rate, buttock pain, or Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire-20 scores at 1 year postoperative.ConclusionsVNOTES for SSLF was safe and feasible and resulted in superior objective and subjective outcomes versus CV surgery for SSLF. These findings suggest that vNOTES could be an alternative to CV surgery for SSLF.