Search

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., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Tamara Grisales reported receiving past payments from Hinge Health. Kate V. Meriwether is a board member-at-large for the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, for which she receives travel support and holds a voting board position, and editor for Elsevier Publishing, for which she receives royalties, and a paid consultant for RBI Medical. Ethan M. Balk is a paid methodology consultant to the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group. Jeannine M. Miranne is an advisor for Attn: Grace. Danielle Antosh reported receiving past payments from LaGrippe Research Inc. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of auditory vaginal air passage among women with and without pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in a population with pelvic floor disorders., Methods: This prospective cohort study included women with urinary incontinence and POP who sought consultation at a single center from January 2012 to August 2013. Women with rectovaginal fistula, prior surgery for POP or incontinence, and current pregnancy were excluded. Participants completed a nonvalidated questionnaire about auditory vaginal air passage, also known as vaginal wind. The subset who had pelvic reconstructive surgery completed the same questionnaire 6 months postoperatively. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and preoperative and postoperative POP quantification data were collected., Results: One hundred thirty-two women were approached for participation, of whom 110 (83%) completed baseline study questionnaires. Of these 110, 59 had POP and 51 had normal pelvic support. The mean age was 55±12 years. Sixty-nine percent (76/110, 95% confidence interval [CI] 60-78%) experienced vaginal wind an average of 2.1±8.7 times weekly. There was no difference in the prevalence of vaginal wind between women with and without POP. Women with vaginal wind were younger than those without vaginal wind (mean age 52±12 years compared with 62±11 years, P<.001). The majority with vaginal wind experienced symptoms during intercourse (65/75 [87%], 95% CI 77-93%) and were at least somewhat bothered by it (49/76 [64%], 95% CI 53-75%), but only 22% (17/76, 95% CI 14-33%) reported a negative effect on quality of life., Conclusion: Vaginal wind is common among women with pelvic floor disorders but is not associated with POP., Level of Evidence: II.