Back to research feed

International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society

August 19, 2026 · via Europe PMC

Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for sentinel lymph node mapping in early-stage endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Karadeniz O, Koyan Karadeniz GN, Soltani M, Can B, Kar E

Journal ArticleAbstract only — full text under license

AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only

Vaginal NOTES achieved sentinel node detection comparable to conventional laparoscopy in early endometrial cancer, with shorter hospital stay.

What was studied

Meta-analysis of four comparative cohort studies including 349 patients (148 vaginal NOTES, 201 laparoscopy).

Key findings

  • Bilateral detection was 86.8% versus 88.3% (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.43-1.77).
  • Unilateral detection, mapping failure, operative time, blood loss, pain and complications were similar.
  • Hospital stay was shorter with vaginal NOTES; conversion rate was 2.7%.

Clinical relevance

A possible alternative approach in selected patients with experienced surgeons.

Who should care

Gynaecological Oncology

Limitations

Only four non-randomised studies, and BMI differed between arms in two.

Consider only in experienced hands; laparoscopy remains the established comparator.

This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the bilateral and unilateral sentinel lymph node detection rates, mapping failure rates, and perioperative outcomes of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy in women with early-stage endometrial cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed from inception to March 2026. Comparative studies of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoscopy for sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial cancer were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool for non-randomized studies. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Four comparative cohort studies comprising 349 patients (148 vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery; 201 laparoscopy) were included. Baseline age, parity, and comorbidity burden were broadly similar between groups, although body mass index differed between arms in 2 studies. The bilateral sentinel lymph node detection rate was 86.8% with vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus 88.3% with laparoscopy (odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.77, p = .71, I= 0%). Unilateral detection and mapping failure rates were comparable between groups. Operative time, estimated blood loss, post-operative pain scores, and complication rates did not differ significantly. Hospital stay was significantly shorter following vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. The conversion rate was 2.7% in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

In carefully selected patients treated by surgeons experienced in transvaginal endoscopic surgery, vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery achieved bilateral and unilateral sentinel lymph node detection rates and mapping failure rates comparable to conventional laparoscopy in early-stage endometrial cancer, with comparable perioperative safety. Available evidence is limited to small non-randomized cohorts with substantial risk of bias; prospective randomized trials are needed to validate these findings and define the optimal patient selection criteria before widespread clinical adoption.

DOI

10.1016/j.ijgc.2026.104985

PMID

42716908

Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.

Want more like this?

Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.

Back to the research feed

Create a free account · Sign in