Does Regional Anesthesia Improve Recovery After vNOTES Hysterectomy? A Comparative Observational Study

TL;DR

This study compares regional and general anesthesia for vNOTES hysterectomy, finding that regional anesthesia may improve recovery but with more hemodynamic issues.

Contribution

The study provides comparative insights into anesthetic approaches for vNOTES hysterectomy, focusing on recovery outcomes and safety.

Findings

Combined spinal epidural anesthesia reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting and improved early recovery outcomes.

Regional anesthesia was associated with more intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia compared to general anesthesia.

Both anesthetic methods had low complication rates within the first month post-surgery.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, vNOTES, has become an increasingly preferred minimally invasive option for benign hysterectomy. General anesthesia is still the routine choice, yet regional methods such as combined spinal epidural anesthesia may support a smoother postoperative course. Although the use of vNOTES is expanding, comparative information on anesthetic approaches remains limited, and its unique physiologic setting requires dedicated evaluation. To compare combined spinal epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia for benign vNOTES hysterectomy, focusing on postoperative nausea and vomiting, recovery quality, and intraoperative physiologic safety. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a single center and identified women who underwent benign vNOTES hysterectomy between March 2024 and August 2025 from electronic medical records. Participants received either combined spinal epidural anesthesia or general anesthesia according to routine clinical practice. All patients were managed within an enhanced recovery pathway that incorporated standardized analgesia and prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting during the first day after surgery. Secondary outcomes included time to discharge from the recovery unit, pain scores at set postoperative intervals, early functional recovery, patient satisfaction and physiologic parameters extracted from intraoperative monitoring records. Analyses were performed according to the anesthesia group documented in the medical files. Results: One hundred forty patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Combined spinal epidural anesthesia was linked to a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a shorter stay in the post-anesthesia care unit, and reduced pain scores in the first 24 h (adjusted odds ratio 0.32, ninety five percent confidence interval 0.15 to 0.68). Early ambulation and oral intake were reached sooner in the combined spinal epidural group, with higher overall satisfaction also noted. Adherence to ERAS elements was similar between groups, with no meaningful differences in early feeding, mobilization, analgesia protocols or PONV prophylaxis. During the procedure, combined spinal epidural anesthesia produced more episodes of hypotension and bradycardia, while general anesthesia was linked to higher airway pressures and lower oxygen saturation. Complication rates within the first month were low in both groups. Conclusions: In this observational cohort study, combined spinal epidural anesthesia was associated with lower postoperative nausea, earlier recovery milestones and greater patient comfort compared with general anesthesia. Hemodynamic instability occurred more often with neuraxial anesthesia but was transient and manageable. While these findings point to potential recovery benefits for some patients, the observational nature of the study and the modest scale of the differences necessitate a cautious interpretation. They should be considered exploratory rather than definitive. The choice of anesthesia should therefore be individualized, weighing potential recovery benefits against the risk of transient hemodynamic effects. Larger and more diverse studies are needed to better define patient selection and clarify the overall risk benefit balance. These findings should be interpreted cautiously and viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive evidence supporting one anesthetic strategy over another.

Figures