Robotic single port versus robotic multiple port transvaginal orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic single-port transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (RSP-vNOTES) compared to robotic multi-port vNOTES (RMP-vNOTES) for hysterectomy and associated procedures. 383 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Among the participants, 291 underwent RMP-vNOTES hysterectomy and 92 underwent RSP-vNOTES hysterectomy. The RSP-vNOTES group had a lower median BMI (26 vs. 29 kg/m2, p = 0.02), fewer patients with prior vaginal delivery (32% vs. 46%, p = 0.02), and lower median uterine weight (92 vs. 122 g, p = 0.02). Regarding additional surgical procedures performed, the RSP-vNOTES group had a higher proportion of endometriosis excision-related interventions (lysis of adhesions, endometriosis excision, ovarian cystectomy, appendectomy, bowel shaving, and bowel oversew, all p < 0.05). Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to adjust for these variables. After adjustment, no significant differences were observed between the groups in total operative time, port placement time, hysterectomy time, estimated blood loss, or conversion rate. No significant differences existed in postoperative pain or complications. In total, three conversions to abdominal robotics occurred (0.8%), all due to complex endometriosis. Robotic vNOTES enhances the performance of vaginal surgeries by leveraging the established advantages of robotic technology with the minimally invasive advantage of vaginal surgery. Both RSP-vNOTES and RMP-vNOTES are effective and safe, but RSP-vNOTES offering logistical and ergonomic benefits while facilitating increased complexity of procedures, particularly endometriosis excision. Overall, RSP-vNOTES is an efficient approach for advanced gynecologic surgery. Similar content being viewed by others Data availability statement Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Committee Opinion 701: Choosing the Route of Hysterectomy for Benign Disease. June 2017, reaffirmed 2021. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2017/06/choosing-the-route-of-hysterectomy-for-benign-disease Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309(7):689–698. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.186 Mohan Y, Chiu VY, Lonky NM (2016) Size matters in planning hysterectomy approach. Womens Health (Lond) 12(4):400–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745505716653692 Lee CL, Wu KY, Su H, Ueng SH, Yen CF (2012) Transvaginal natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in adnexal procedures. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19(4):509–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.02.005 Chen Y, Zhou Y, Tan L et al (2023) Comparative analysis of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoendoscopic single-site sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a propensity score matching study. Heliyon 9(9):e19698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19698 Wang L, Ge H, Xiong L et al (2024) Vaginal natural orifice transvaginal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) for benign ovarian cysts is safe and feasible in same-day discharge: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Womens Health 24(1):514. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03352-0 Hou Q, Li X, Huang L et al (2024) Comparison of different types of single-port laparoscopic surgery in posterior uterine fibroid resection. Sci Rep 14(1):22657. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70337-2 Kim MS, Noh JJ, Kim TJ (2021) Hysterectomy and adnexal procedures by Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (VNH): Initial Findings From a Korean Surgeon. Front Med (Lausanne). 7:583147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.583147 Lovell DY, Guan X (2024) Robot-assisted vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for frozen pelvis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 31(6):474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.03.002 Dapeng S, Jie C, Pu X, Jing L (2022) Transvaginal single-hole laparoscopic (V-NOTES) total hysterectomy assisted by the Da Vinci Xi system: a case report. Asian J Surg 45(7):1505–1506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2022.03.013 Xu P, Zhao Z, Tian Y, Li Y, Liu Y, Ji M (2023) A retrospective analysis of robot-assisted total hysterectomy by transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Heliyon 9(9):e19207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19207 Sunkara S, Guan X (2022) Robotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic myomectomy. Fertil Steril 118(2):414–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.05.009 Zhang C, Duan K, Fang F, et al (2021) Comparison of transvaginal and transumbilical laparoscopic single-site surgery for ovarian cysts. JSLS 25(2):e2021.00019. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2021.00019 Chaccour C, Giannini A, Golia D’Augè T et al (2023) Hysterectomy using vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery compared with classic laparoscopic hysterectomy: a new advantageous approach? A systematic review on surgical outcomes. Gynecol Obstet Invest 88(4):187–196. https://doi.org/10.1159/000530797 Thigpen B, Connell P, Erfani H, Koythong T, Sunkara S, Guan X (2023) Robotic-assisted vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus robotic-assisted single-site port for benign hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. J Robot Surg 17(5):2487–2494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01680-1 Mereu L, Pecorino B, Ferrara M et al (2023) Cumulative sum analysis of learning curve process for vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 30(7):582–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2023.03.013 Liu J, Tan L, Thigpen B et al (2022) Evaluation of the learning curve and safety outcomes in robotic assisted vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic hysterectomy: a case series of 84 patients. Int J Med Robot 18(3):e2385. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2385 Guan X, Lovell D, Sendukas E (2024) Pioneering case: robotic single port (SP) transvaginal NOTES (RSP-vNOTES) for hysterectomy in ten steps. Intelligent Surgery 7:1–6 Guan X, Yang Q, Lovell DY (2024) Assessing feasibility and outcomes of robotic single port transvaginal NOTES(RSP-vNOTES) hysterectomy: a case series. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.08.018 Thigpen B, Sun J, Guan X (2022) Robotic transvaginal NOTES: a step-by-step approach to surgical technique. Intelligent Surgery 4:1–8 Andjić M, Sleiman Z, Sparić R et al (2023) The transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) procedures in contemporary gynecology: an appraisal of the published evidence and a review. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 50(10):223. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5010223 Liu Y, Fang F, Li Y, Li Q, Lu Q, Wei S, Guan X, Zhang C (2024) Domestic robotic assisted SP vNOTES (RSP-vNOTES) for the treatment of benign gynecologic disease. Chin J Laparoscopic Surgery (Electronic Edition) 17(4):234–238 Zhang C, Li Q, Fang F, Wei S, Lu Q, Guan X (2024) Transvaginal NOTES hysterectomy with the Chinese robotic single port platform - report of two cases. Intelligent Surgery 7:30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isurg.2024.02.001 Santillan-Gomez A (2024) Single-port robotic-assisted transvaginal hysterectomy (vNOTES) in a hostile abdomen. Int J Gynecol Cancer 34(7):1107–1108. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2023-004650 Kanno K, Higuchi N, Taniguchi R, Andou M (2025) Vaginal assisted NOTES hysterectomy for large uterus using the da Vinci SP. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2025.01.008 Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. Author information Authors and Affiliations Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Qiannan Yang, Jaden Kohn, and Xiaoming Guan. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Qiannan Yang and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval This study was IRB-approved from Baylor College of Medicine on March 8, 2022, under the approval number H-51429. Patient consent was waived due to retrospective nature of the study by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Supplementary Information Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Rights and permissions Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. About this article Cite this article Yang, Q., Kohn, J. & Guan, X. Robotic single port versus robotic multiple port transvaginal orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. J Robotic Surg 19, 410 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02593-x Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02593-x