Liu Yang1†
Li Junqiang- 1Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, The Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, China
- 2West China Longquan Hospital Sichuan University, The First People’s Hospital of Longquanyi Chengdu District, Chengdu, China
- 3Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
Background: Obesity is a global health challenge that complicates gynecological surgery. Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (v-NOTES) offers a minimally invasive approach to total hysterectomy (TH), but its safety and efficacy in obese patients remain underexplored.
Objective: This study aimed to assess the impact of obesity on the perioperative and clinical outcomes of v-NOTES hysterectomy, accounting for potential confounders.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 211 patients who underwent v-NOTES TH between January 2021 and September 2024. Patients were categorized into two groups based on BMI: the control group (BMI < 28 kg/m2, n = 112) and the obesity group (BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2, n = 99). Intraoperative indicators and postoperative outcomes during hospitalization, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, gastrointestinal recovery, hospital stay, and postoperative complications, were compared. A multivariable regression analysis was used to adjust for confounders. All patients were followed up during hospitalization and at 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively.
Results: Obese patients had significantly longer operative times (β = 39.2, p < 0.001), delayed gastrointestinal recovery (time to first flatus: β = 5.8, p = 0.018), and prolonged hospital stays (β = 1.3, p = 0.002). No significant differences were found in intraoperative blood loss, conversion rates, blood transfusion, postoperative complication rates, or total hospitalization costs (limited to the inpatient period; all p > 0.05).
Conclusion: v-NOTES hysterectomy is a safe and effective option for obese patients, with comparable complication rates to non-obese patients. However, obesity independently contributes to longer operative times and delayed recovery. Targeted perioperative strategies, particularly for improving gastrointestinal recovery, could enhance outcomes in this population.
1 Introduction
Obesity is a global epidemic and a significant risk factor for various surgical complications, including prolonged operative time, increased blood loss, and delayed recovery (1, 2). In gynecological surgery, these challenges are particularly pronounced due to the anatomical and technical difficulties associated with obesity (3).
Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (v-NOTES) has emerged as a minimally invasive technique combining the advantages of vaginal and laparoscopic approaches. By leveraging a natural orifice, v-NOTES avoids abdominal incisions, potentially reducing postoperative pain, scarring, and recovery time (4, 5). However, evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of v-NOTES in obese patients is limited, as most published studies have focused on conventional laparoscopic or robotic approaches (6, 7).
Notably, the versatility and broader applicability of the vaginal route in minimally invasive surgery have also been emphasized in general surgical contexts (8). This finding supports its potential value in high-risk populations, such as obese patients undergoing gynecologic procedures.
This study aims to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of v-NOTES hysterectomy in obese versus non-obese patients, addressing a critical gap in the literature. The findings will contribute to clinical decision-making and optimization of surgical strategies for high-risk populations.
2 Methods
2.1 Study design and population
This retrospective observational study adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for observational research. Clinical data were collected from patients who underwent total hysterectomy (TH) via v-NOTES between January 2021 and September 2024 at three tertiary referral hospitals in Sichuan Province, China: the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, and Longquan Hospital of West China Hospital, Sichuan University. All procedures were performed by experienced gynecologic surgeons who had completed over 50 v-NOTES hysterectomies prior to the initiation of this study.
2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Patients were eligible for inclusion if they underwent TH for benign gynecological conditions using the v-NOTES surgical approach and had no evidence of pelvic organ prolapse. Patients were excluded if they had incomplete clinical data, severe comorbidities (e.g., cardiac or respiratory failure), or if postoperative pathology revealed malignancies requiring additional treatment.
2.3 Patient selection and grouping
A total of 250 patients were initially screened for eligibility. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 39 patients were excluded: 22 due to incomplete clinical data, 7 due to malignancy diagnosed postoperatively, and 10 due to significant comorbidities that could confound perioperative outcomes. These comorbidities included patients with poorly controlled diabetes requiring prolonged preoperative insulin adjustment (n = 3), severe hypertension requiring inpatient stabilization (n = 1), recent heart valve replacement on anticoagulation therapy with perioperative bridging (n = 2), and concurrent non-gynecologic surgical procedures such as lipoma excision (n = 4).
Ultimately, 211 patients were included in the final analysis. They were stratified into two groups based on their body mass index (BMI): the control group (BMI < 28 kg/m2, n = 112) and the obesity group (BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2, n = 99). The BMI range was 18.5–27.9 28 kg/m2 in the control group and 28.0–39.5 kg/m2 in the obesity group.
The flow of patient selection and grouping is summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Patients’ selection flowchart.
3 Study variables
3.1 Baseline characteristics
Baseline characteristics included patient age, history of vaginal delivery, history of abdominal surgeries, uterine weight, and surgical indications. Uterine weight was estimated using the formula: uterine weight (g) = Uterine density (1.04 g/cm3) × Uterine volume. Uterine volume was calculated as follows:
3.2 Intraoperative variables
Intraoperative variables analyzed in this study included operative time (minutes), estimated blood loss (mL), the number of cases requiring conversion to other surgical approaches, and the requirement for intraoperative blood transfusion.
3.3 Perioperative variables
Perioperative outcomes included time to first flatus (hours), incidence of urinary retention, number of patients who developed postoperative fever, hemoglobin (Hb) drop (calculated as the difference between preoperative Hb and Hb on postoperative day 2), length of hospital stay (days), and total hospitalization costs (measured in CNY and limited to the inpatient period).
Additionally, we reviewed medical records and conducted follow-up at 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively to assess early complications, including infections, hematoma, and intraoperative injuries; no major complications were reported after discharge.
4 Statistical analysis
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Categorical variables were expressed as percentages (%) and compared using the chi-square test. Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation (X ± SD) and compared between groups using independent samples t-tests. For comparisons among three groups (e.g., different obesity levels), a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied if the data were normally distributed and met the assumption of homogeneity of variance. If these assumptions were not met, the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis H test was used instead.
4.2 Multivariable adjustment
To account for potential confounding factors such as age, uterine weight, and surgical indications, a multivariable linear regression analysis was performed for continuous outcomes, and a logistic regression analysis was applied for binary outcomes. The results of linear regression were reported as β coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), while logistic regression results were expressed as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% CI.
4.3 Sample size considerations
No formal sample size calculation was conducted due to the retrospective nature of the study. The sample size was determined by the number of eligible patients within the study period (n = 211). While sufficient for detecting major differences between the control and obesity groups, the statistical power needed to detect smaller differences may be limited.
4.4 Statistical software
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 23.0 software. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
5 Bias control
To minimize selection bias, all eligible patients meeting the inclusion criteria within the study period were included. Standardized data collection protocols were used to reduce information bias. Additionally, multivariable regression analysis was used to adjust for confounding factors, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.
6 Results
6.1 Baseline characteristics
A total of 211 patients were included in the study, with 112 patients in the control group and 99 patients in the obesity group. Among patients in the obesity group, 36 (36.4%) were mildly obese (BMI 28.0–32.5 kg/m2), 38 (38.4%) were moderately obese (BMI 32.5–37.5 kg/m2), and 25 (25.3%) were severely obese (BMI 37.5–50 kg/m2). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, history of vaginal delivery, history of abdominal surgeries, uterine weight, or surgical indications. However, BMI was significantly higher in the obesity group compared to the control group. The baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of baseline characteristics between the control and obese groups.
6.2 Intraoperative outcomes
The operative time was significantly longer in the obesity group compared to the control group. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, that is, the number of cases converted to other surgical approaches or intraoperative blood transfusion rates. These results are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Comparison of intraoperative parameters between the control and obese groups.
A multivariable linear regression analysis (Table 3) demonstrated that obesity was independently associated with a significant increase in operative time. However, no significant associations were observed between obesity and intraoperative blood loss.
Table 3. Multivariable linear regression results.
For categorical outcomes, the logistic regression analysis (Table 4) revealed no significant differences in the odds of conversion to other surgical approaches or intraoperative blood transfusion.
Table 4. Logistic regression results.
6.3 Perioperative outcomes
Perioperative outcomes showed significant differences in terms of time to first flatus and length of hospital stay between the two groups. However, no significant differences were observed in urinary retention, postoperative fever, hemoglobin drop, or total hospitalization costs.
Importantly, no intraoperative or early postoperative injuries to surrounding organs were identified in this cohort of 211 patients. Specifically, there were no cases of bladder injury, ureteral injury, bowel serosal tears, or vaginal/vulvar trauma. In addition, no vaginal cuff hematomas, cuff infections, or symptomatic urinary tract infections were documented within the first postoperative week. These results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Comparison of perioperative parameters between the control and obese groups.
The multivariable linear regression analysis (Table 3) further confirmed that obesity was independently associated with delayed time to first flatus and prolonged hospital stays. However, no significant associations were observed between obesity and hemoglobin decrease or total hospitalization costs.
For categorical outcomes, the logistic regression analysis (Table 4) revealed no significant differences in the odds of urinary retention or postoperative fever.
6.4 Perioperative outcomes among the BMI groups
Perioperative outcomes demonstrated significant differences among the three BMI groups in terms of operative time, time to first flatus, and hemoglobin drop. In contrast, no significant differences were observed among the groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, or total hospitalization costs. Additionally, the incidence of perioperative complications, such as urinary retention, postoperative fever, intraoperative transfusion, and conversion to other surgical approaches, did not differ significantly between the groups. These findings are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. Comparison of perioperative outcomes among the BMI groups.
7 Discussion
7.1 Obesity and its impact on surgical outcomes
Obesity has emerged as a critical global health challenge, with its prevalence rising significantly in recent years (9, 10). According to Chinese standards, a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 28 kg/m2 is classified as obesity (11). Although the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a lower cutoff of 27.5 kg/m2 for Asian populations, the 28 kg/m2 threshold is widely used in Chinese studies, as it better reflects obesity-related health risks in the Chinese population (11, 12).
Beyond its impact on the quality of life, obesity is closely associated with various chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and certain cancers (9). Additionally, obesity can lead to hormonal imbalances and metabolic abnormalities, increasing the risk of reproductive system disorders such as endometrial polyps, uterine fibroids, endometrial hyperplasia, and endometrial cancer (1, 4, 5, 13). These conditions often necessitate total hysterectomy (TH), and obese women consequently represent a population with heightened clinical and surgical risks (4, 7).
7.2 The role of v-NOTES in obese patients
v-NOTES is an advanced minimally invasive surgical technique that offers advantages such as reduced trauma, faster postoperative recovery, lower pain levels, and the absence of abdominal scars (2, 3). However, its application in obese patients poses challenges due to anatomical constraints, such as a narrow vaginal canal and excessive pelvic and abdominal fat, raising concerns about its feasibility and efficacy in this population (5). While previous studies have demonstrated the benefits of v-NOTES in treating benign gynecological diseases, limited research has directly compared surgical outcomes between obese and non-obese patients undergoing v-NOTES for TH (14–16). Notably, although our study focuses on benign conditions, the complexity of obesity as a clinical factor has also been highlighted in malignant contexts, where the so-called ‘obesity paradox’—suggesting potential survival benefits in certain cancers—has been investigated but not confirmed (17).
7.3 Key findings and their implications
Our study retrospectively analyzed 211 patients who underwent v-NOTES TH, dividing them into obesity and control groups based on BMI. The results showed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, conversion to other surgical approaches, intraoperative blood transfusion, postoperative urinary retention, postoperative fever, hemoglobin drop, or total hospitalization costs. These findings indicate that v-NOTES is a safe and feasible surgical option for obese patients, aligning with prior studies (9, 18).
However, the study identified significant differences in operative time, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay, which were all longer in the obesity group. The multivariable regression analysis confirmed that obesity was independently associated with these outcomes. Further subgroup analysis within the obesity group revealed that higher BMI was significantly associated with prolonged operative time, delayed gastrointestinal recovery, and greater hemoglobin drop (all p < 0.05). These findings suggest a dose–response relationship between BMI and surgical complexity, even among obese patients. As BMI increases, anatomical challenges and metabolic alterations may further impair surgical efficiency and recovery. These results underscore the need for stratified perioperative planning and enhanced intraoperative vigilance when managing patients with more severe obesity.
Although the incidence of postoperative urinary retention was not statistically different between the two BMI groups, the overall rate (~11%) appears relatively high. This complication is likely multifactorial in origin (19). In v-NOTES procedures, intraoperative traction or irritation of the bladder and pelvic nerves may temporarily impair voiding function. Additionally, some patients received opioid-based analgesics, which are known to inhibit detrusor muscle activity and delay micturition. Other potential contributing factors include postoperative pain, anxiety, delayed mobilization, and timing of catheter removal. These mechanisms may act synergistically to increase the risk of transient urinary retention after surgery (20).
7.4 Factors contributing to prolonged operative time
The prolonged operative time observed in obese patients can be attributed to multiple anatomical and technical challenges. Excessive abdominal and visceral fat may obscure the surgical field, hinder instrument manipulation, and complicate visualization of target structures. Additionally, a narrow vaginal canal in some obese patients may further restrict surgical access and increase the technical complexity of the procedure. These factors collectively contribute to the longer operative times noted in this study.
7.5 Delayed gastrointestinal recovery in obese patients
Delayed gastrointestinal recovery, as indicated by prolonged time to first flatus, was another notable finding among obese patients. Several mechanisms may account for this phenomenon. First, prolonged operative time in obese patients can lead to greater tissue trauma and heightened inflammatory responses, which increase the release of cytokines such as interleukin-8 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha—both known to impair gastrointestinal motility (21). Additionally, extended exposure to anesthesia may suppress the autonomic regulation of the digestive system, further delaying recovery of bowel function (22).
Obesity itself is associated with slower gastric emptying and reduced intestinal motility (23). Moreover, obese individuals often exhibit elevated levels of baseline systemic inflammation and metabolic dysfunction. These conditions may be exacerbated by surgical stress, resulting in hormonal imbalances that disrupt gastrointestinal motility and appetite regulation, particularly involving hormones such as insulin (24). Finally, psychological factors may also play a role. Obese patients may experience greater postoperative anxiety or mood disturbances, which could reduce adherence to early mobilization, dietary recommendations, and overall recovery plans—further contributing to delayed gastrointestinal function (25).
7.6 Strengths and limitations
This study has several strengths. First, the use of multivariable regression analysis allowed us to adjust for potential confounders such as age, uterine weight, and surgical indications, thereby enhancing the validity of our findings. Second, the study provides valuable insights into the feasibility and safety of v-NOTES in obese patients, a population often underrepresented in surgical research.
However, several limitations must be acknowledged. As a retrospective study, it is subject to inherent biases, such as unmeasured confounders, including surgeon experience and variations in surgical technique. Additionally, the relatively small sample size may reduce the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, long-term outcomes, such as recurrence rates or quality of life, were not assessed.
However, several limitations must be acknowledged. As a retrospective study, it is subject to selection bias and unmeasured confounders, including surgeon experience and variations in surgical technique. The relatively small sample size may limit generalizability, and long-term outcomes were not assessed.
Moreover, postoperative analgesia protocols were not standardized across the three participating centers: not all patients received analgesic pumps, and the drug regimens varied. As such, we were unable to systematically evaluate the impact of analgesic strategies on outcomes such as urinary retention. Future multicenter prospective studies with standardized perioperative management are needed to validate these findings.
8 Conclusion
v-NOTES is a safe and feasible surgical approach for obese patients undergoing TH, with a comparable safety profile to non-obese patients. However, obesity is independently associated with prolonged operative time, delayed gastrointestinal recovery, and extended hospital stays. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring perioperative and postoperative care strategies to address the unique needs of obese patients. Interventions to promote gastrointestinal recovery and reduce hospital stays may be particularly beneficial. Future research should focus on validating these findings in larger, multicenter cohorts and exploring novel strategies to optimize outcomes for obese patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
This study was approved by the ethics committees of all participating hospitals, including the Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, the Ethics Committee of West China Longquan Hospital of Sichuan University, and the Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University. As this was a retrospective study using anonymized medical records, the requirement for informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University.
Author contributions
LY: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. WQ: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft. LH: Methodology, Writing – original draft. PF: Methodology, Writing – original draft. LT: Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Data curation. LJ: Writing – review & editing, Project administration.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by the Construction Project of Key Medical Disciplines (Laboratories) and Key Specialties in Chengdu, Sichuan Province.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to all staff members who contributed to this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Abbreviations
v-NOTES, Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery; STROBE, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; TH, Total Hysterectomy; BMI, Body Mass Index.
References
1. Alkatout, I. Laparoscopic hysterectomy: total or subtotal?- functional and didactic aspects. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. (2022) 31:13–23. doi: 10.1080/13645706.2020.1769675
2. Marchand, GJ, Ulibarri, H, Arroyo, A, Blanco, M, Herrera, DG, Hamilton, B, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy for benign indications. AJOG Glob Rep. (2024) 4:100355. doi: 10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100355
3. Marchand, GJ, Masoud, AT, Ulibarri, H, Arroyo, A, Moir, C, Blanco, M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery vs laparoscopic hysterectomy. AJOG Glob Rep. (2024) 4:100320. doi: 10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100320
4. Kahan, S, and Winston, G. Addressing obesity in clinical gynecology practice. Clin Obstet Gynecol. (2018) 61:10–26. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000334
5. Kaya, C, Yıldız, Ş, Alay, İ, Aslan, Ö, Aydıner, İE, and Yaşar, L. The comparison of surgical outcomes following laparoscopic hysterectomy and vNOTES hysterectomy in obese patients. J Investig Surg. (2022) 35:862–7. doi: 10.1080/08941939.2021.1927262
6. Merlier, M, Collinet, P, Pierache, A, Vandendriessche, D, Delporte, V, Rubod, C, et al. Is V-NOTES hysterectomy as safe and feasible as outpatient surgery compared with vaginal hysterectomy? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. (2022) 29:665–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.01.007
7. Kaya, C, Yıldız, Ş, Alay, İ, Karakaş, S, Durmuş, U, Güraslan, H, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes of Total laparoscopic hysterectomy and vNOTES hysterectomy for undescended-enlarged uteri. J Investig Surg. (2022) 35:918–23. doi: 10.1080/08941939.2021.1958111
8. Pavone, M, Lecointre, L, Seeliger, B, Oliva, R, Akladios, C, Querleu, D, et al. The vaginal route for minimally invasive surgery: a practical guide for general surgeons. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. (2025) 34:78–87. doi: 10.1080/13645706.2024.2359707
9. Bouchez, MC, Delporte, V, Delplanque, S, Leroy, M, Vandendriessche, D, Rubod, C, et al. vNOTES hysterectomy: what about obese patients? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. (2023) 30:569–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2023.03.014
10. Liu, X, He, M, and Li, Y. Adult obesity diagnostic tool: a narrative review. Medicine (Baltimore). (2024) 103:e37946. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037946
11. Wang, Y, Mi, J, Shan, XY, Wang, QJ, and Ge, KY. Is China facing an obesity epidemic and the consequences? The trends in obesity and chronic disease in China. Int J Obes. (2007) 31:177–88. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803354
12. Zhou, BF. Cooperative Meta-analysis Group of the Working Group on obesity in China. Predictive values of body mass index and waist circumference for risk factors of certain related diseases in Chinese adults--study on optimal cut-off points of body mass index and waist circumference in Chinese adults. Biomed Environ Sci. (2002) 15:83–96.
13. Buzzaccarini, G, Noventa, M, D'Alterio, MN, Terzic, M, Scioscia, M, Schäfer, SD, et al. vNOTES hysterectomy: can it be considered the optimal approach for obese patients? J Investig Surg. (2022) 35:868–9. doi: 10.1080/08941939.2021.1939467
14. Chaccour, C, Giannini, A, Golia D'Augè, T, Ayed, A, Allahqoli, L, Alkatout, I, et al. 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 Investig. (2023) 88:187–96. doi: 10.1159/000530797
15. Yuan, W, Yang, F, and Zheng, Y. Perioperative outcomes of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in hysterectomy: a comparative study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. (2023) 165:1151–7. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.15323
16. Hurni, Y, Simonson, C, Di Serio, M, Lachat, R, Bodenmann, P, Seidler, S, et al. Feasibility and safety of vNOTES for gynecological procedures in obese patients. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. (2023) 52:102687. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2023.102687
17. Pavone, M, Goglia, M, Taliento, C, Lecointre, L, Bizzarri, N, Fanfani, F, et al. Obesity paradox: is a high body mass index positively influencing survival outcomes in gynecological cancers? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. (2024) 34:1253–62. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-005252
18. Matak, L, Medić, F, Sonicki, Z, Matak, M, Šimičević, M, and Baekelandt, J. Retrospective analysis between total laparoscopic and vNOTES hysterectomy in obese patients: single-center study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. (2024) 309:2735–40. doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07467-5
19. McDermott, CD, Tunitsky-Bitton, E, Dueñas-Garcia, OF, Willis-Gray, MG, Cadish, LA, Edenfield, A, et al. Postoperative urinary retention. Urogynecology (Phila). (2023) 29:381–96. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001344
20. Baldini, G, Bagry, H, Aprikian, A, and Carli, F. Postoperative urinary retention: anesthetic and perioperative considerations. Anesthesiology. (2009) 110:1139–57. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31819f7aea
21. Harnsberger, CR, Maykel, JA, and Alavi, K. Postoperative ileus. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. (2019) 32:166–70. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1677003
22. Chen, M, Wu, D, Chen, F, Li, J, Wu, J, and Shangguan, W. Intravenous lidocaine simultaneously infused with sufentanil to accelerate gastrointestinal function recovery in patients after thoracolumbar surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled study. Eur Spine J. (2023) 32:313–20. doi: 10.1007/s00586-022-07456-9
23. Shay, JES, and Singh, A. The effect of obesity on gastrointestinal disease. Gastroenterol Clin N Am. (2023) 52:403–15. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2023.03.008
24. Guzzardi, MA, Pugliese, G, Bottiglieri, F, Pelosini, C, Muscogiuri, G, Barrea, L, et al. Obesity-related gut hormones and cancer: novel insight into the pathophysiology. Int J Obes. (2021) 45:1886–98. doi: 10.1038/s41366-021-00865-8
Keywords: obesity, vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, total hysterectomy, postoperative recovery, retrospective study
Citation: Yang L, Qilin W, Haiying L, Feng P, Tao L and Junqiang L (2025) Impact of obesity on clinical outcomes of v-NOTES hysterectomy: a retrospective study. Front. Med. 12:1619188. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1619188
Edited by:
Dimitrios Damaskos, University of Edinburgh, United KingdomReviewed by:
Matteo Pavone, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic (IRCCS), ItalyDaniela Huber, CHVR, Switzerland
Copyright © 2025 Yang, Qilin, Haiying, Feng, Tao and Junqiang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Li Junqiang, bGpxZG9jQDEyNi5jb20=
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship