Postoperative patient attitudes and perceptions of transvaginal cholecystectomy

Exploring the umbilical and vaginal port during minimally invasive surgery

This article focuses on the anatomy, literature, and our own experiences in an effort to assist in the decision-making process of choosing between an umbilical or vaginal port. Umbilical access is more familiar to general surgeons; it is thicker than the transvaginal entry, and has more nerve endings and sensory innervations. This combination increases tissue damage and pain in the umbilical port site. The vaginal route requires prophylactic antibiotics, a Foley catheter, and a period of postoperative sexual abstinence. Removal of large specimens is a challenge in traditional laparoscopy. Recently, there has been increased interest in going beyond traditional laparoscopy by using the navel in single-incision and port-reduction techniques. The benefits for removal of surgical specimens by colpotomy are not new. There is increasing interest in techniques that use vaginotomy in multifunctional ways, as described under the names of culdolaparoscopy, minilaparoscopy-assisted natural orifice surgery, and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Both the navel and the transvaginal accesses are safe and convenient to use in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The umbilical site has been successfully used in laparoscopy as an entry and extraction port. Vaginal entry and extraction is associated with a lower risk of incisional hernias, less postoperative pain, and excellent cosmetic results.

Women’s Perception of Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES)

Objective. Over the past 8 years, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has developed from preclinical to routine clinical practice. However, there are still concerns regarding the transvaginal approach. In our survey, we were interested in females with a professional medical background, thus having at least a basic medical understanding, which might discriminate between objective and subjective concerns. Material and Methods. A questionnaire with 14 items was distributed among 1895 female physicians and nursing and administration staff of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. In addition, a qualitative literature review was performed. Data analysis was carried out using statistical package R version 2.15.0. Results. The questionnaire was answered anonymously by 553 employees (29%). Fifty-seven percent were nurses, 18.6% belonged to administration, and 17% were physicians. A total of 63.1% of our respondents would choose the transvaginal NOTES technique for an assumed ovariectomy, while only 30.4% would choose this access for cholecystectomy. Doubts regarding transvaginal NOTES were related to sexual dysfunction (44.8%), its experimental nature (43.8%), future pregnancies (36.8%), and ethical reasons (30.3%). The literature review showed that women’s perception of the transvaginal access is documented very heterogeneously and therefore difficult to compare. Conclusions. Despite the good reported results of NOTES and the medical background of the surveyed female employees, our study and the literature review clearly shows that there are  fears regarding the transvaginal access, which might be a result of limited information. More accurate explanation of the available methods by the attending surgeon can lead to a better choice of the patient’s preferred method.

Transvaginal cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare the results of transvaginal cholecystectomy (TVC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) for gallbladder disease.

METHODS: We performed a literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, Chinese Medical Journal database and Wanfang Data for trials comparing outcomes between TVC and CLC. Data were extracted by two authors. Mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), odds ratios and risk rate with 95%CIs were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with the χ² test. The fixed-effects model was used in the absence of statistically significant heterogeneity. The random-effects model was chosen when heterogeneity was found.

RESULTS: There were 730 patients in nine controlled clinical trials. No significant difference was found regarding demographic characteristics (P > 0.5), including anesthetic risk score, age, body mass index, and abdominal surgical history between the TVC and CLC groups. Both groups had similar mortality, morbidity, and return to work after surgery. Patients in the TVC group had a lower pain score on postoperative day 1 (SMD: -0.957, 95%CI: -1.488 to -0.426, P < 0.001), needed less postoperative analgesic medication (SMD: -0.574, 95%CI: -0.807 to -0.341, P < 0.001) and stayed for a shorter time in hospital (MD: -1.004 d, 95%CI: -1.779 to 0.228, P = 0.011), but had longer operative time (MD: 17.307 min, 95%CI: 6.789 to 27.826, P = 0.001). TVC had no significant influence on postoperative sexual function and quality of life. Better cosmetic results and satisfaction were achieved in the TVC group.

CONCLUSION: TVC is safe and effective for gallbladder disease. However, vaginal injury might occur, and further trials are needed to compare TVC with CLC.

Qualitative and quantitative analysis of women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery

BACKGROUND

Prior surveys evaluating women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery both support and refute the acceptability of transvaginal access. Most surveys employed mainly quantitative analysis, limiting the insight into the women's perspective. In this mixed-methods study, we include qualitative and quantitative methodology to assess women's perceptions of transvaginal procedures.

METHODS

Women seen at the outpatient clinics of a tertiary-care center were asked to complete a survey. Demographics and preferences for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and tubal ligation were elicited, along with open-ended questions about concerns or benefits of transvaginal access. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to examine the impact of age, education, parity, and prior transvaginal procedures on preferences. For the qualitative evaluation, content analysis by independent investigators identified themes, issues, and concerns raised in the comments.

RESULTS

The completed survey tool was returned by 409 women (grouped mean age 53 years, mean number of 2 children, 82% ≥ some college education, and 56% with previous transvaginal procedure). The transvaginal approach was acceptable for tubal ligation to 59%, for appendectomy to 43%, and for cholecystectomy to 41% of the women. The most frequently mentioned factors that would make women prefer a vaginal approach were decreased invasiveness (14.4%), recovery time (13.9%), scarring (13.7%), pain (6%), and surgical entry location relative to organ removed (4.4%). The most frequently mentioned concerns about the vaginal approach were the possibility of complications/safety (14.7%), pain (9%), infection (5.6%), and recovery time (4.9%). A number of women voiced technical concerns about the vaginal approach.

CONCLUSIONS

As in prior studies, scarring and pain were important issues to be considered, but recovery time and increased invasiveness were also in the "top five" list. The surveyed women appeared to actively participate in evaluating the technical components of the procedures.

Laparoscopy and natural orifice surgery: first entry safety surveillance step

Results of this study suggest that surveillance of the first entrance port in laparoscopic and natural orifice transvaginal endoscopic procedures may assist in recognizing complications that might otherwise be missed.

Background and Objective:

We are sharing information regarding the surveillance of the first entrance port in laparoscopic and natural orifice transvaginal endoscopy surgeries. However, we are not analyzing techniques or other surgical findings.

Method:

In this study, 160 women with previous abdominal pelvic surgeries underwent laparoscopic surgery, 145 patients underwent transvaginal Minilaparoscopy Assisted Natural Orifice Surgery (hybrid), and 3 patients underwent pure natural orifice transvaginal endoscopic surgery (pure). For those patients who had laparoscopy and hybrid procedures, the surveillance was from a laparoscope or gastroscope placed in a secondary port. Surveillance in pure cases was done using a gastroscopic retro view to see the pouch of Douglas.

Results:

The laparoscopic procedures were gynecological procedures. The hybrid procedures included gynecological procedures as well as appendectomies and cholecystectomies; the pure procedures were cholecystectomies. There were a few minor vascular and bowel injuries in the laparoscopy group. There were no injuries in the transvaginal hybrid or pure procedures groups.

Conclusion:

The surveillance of the first entrance port can be an effective precautionary step. The cumulative experience suggests that using such surveillance in cases involving patients with prior surgery may assist in recognizing complications that might otherwise be missed.

Surgical outcome and midterm follow-up after transvaginal NOTES hybrid cholecystectomy: analysis of a prospective clinical series

BACKGROUND

In the last 3 years transvaginal hybrid cholecystectomy (TV-ChE) has gained widespread interest as a potential alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, substantial doubts about the transvaginal access and possibly associated complaints and complications have been raised.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective clinical series of 80 consecutive female patients, nonrandomly chosen and without a control group, who underwent a TV-ChE. All patients were evaluated with special regard to outcome data such as surgical complications and gynecological complaints. Perioperative clinical data were collected and a gynecological examination was performed 3 weeks after surgery as well as a follow-up survey 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The TV-ChE was performed in all patients without conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery. Two surgical complications occurred (1 urinary bladder injury and 1 case of bleeding). No infections of the surgical wound or any other complications were seen in the gynecological follow-up examination 3 weeks after the operation. After a follow-up of 3 months, 4% of the patients under 50 years of age reported slight and temporary problems after transvaginal cholecystectomy (dyspareunia and episodes of unclear lower abdominal pain), whereas such phenomena were seen in about 9% of women over 50 years of age (P < .05). A 33-year-old woman became pregnant 3 weeks after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

TV-ChE is a safe and less invasive surgical technique. Doubts about this operating technique with regard to an increased risk of infection or surgical complications as well as subsequent gynecological problems seem to be unfounded.