Comparative study of da Vinci Xi-vNOTES and Shurui SP-vNOTES in hysterectomy

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2026.03.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the clinical outcomes of da Vinci Xi-vNOTES and domestic Shurui SP-vNOTES in hysterectomy.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 141 patients who underwent hysterectomy at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from Oct. 2024 to Feb. 2026. Among them, 87 patients were in the da Vinci group and 54 patients were in the Shurui group. Baseline data, surgical indicators, perioperative complications, and postoperative recovery were compared between the two groups.

Results

The setup time in the Shurui group was significantly shorter than that in the da Vinci group (3.2±0.8 min vs. 8.1±1.5 min, P<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in operative time, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative pain score, time to first ambulation, time to first urination, time to first flatus, and complication rate (P>0.05). In the da Vinci group, there was one case of bladder injury and one case of transumbilical single-port surgery; no such events occurred in the Shurui group.

Conclusion

The domestic Shurui SP-vNOTES demonstrates good safety and efficacy in hysterectomy, with superior setup efficiency compared to da Vinci Xi-vNOTES. Its clinical outcomes are comparable to those of the da Vinci group, making it a feasible alternative for minimally invasive gynecological surgery in China.

Key words: Hysterectomy, Da Vinci Xi-vNOTES, Shurui SP-vNOTES, Minimally invasive surgery, Perioperative complications

Jingjing Wang, Yaxiong Xu, Xiaoming Guan, Xiaojie Hu, Xiaowei Dou, Chunhua Zhang. Comparative study of da Vinci Xi-vNOTES and Shurui SP-vNOTES in hysterectomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2026, 19(03): 153-158.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2026.03.006

https://zhqjwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2026/V19/I03/153

Figures/Tables 5

References 31

[1]	Mollahüseyinoglu Küllaç F, Özdemir AZ, Yildiz Ç. A single center retrospective study of vNOTES hysterectomy, laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy operations[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2024, 103(50): e40881.
[2]	Kheirbek N, Delporte V, El Hajj H, et al. Comparing vNOTES hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2023, 30(11): 877-883.
[3]	Mereu L, Pecorino B, Ferrara M, et al. Cumulative sum analysis of learning curve process for vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2023, 30(7): 582-586.
[4]	Jung YW, Kim SW, Kim YT. Recent advances of robotic surgery and single port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology[J]. J Gynecol Oncol, 2009, 20(3): 137-144.
[5]	Guan X, Lovell DY, Zurawin R. The evolution of transvaginal robot-assisted surgery in gynecology[J]. Surg Technol Int, 2024, 44: 181-184.
[6]	Guan X, Guan Z, Sunkara S, et al. Indocyanine green-assisted retrograde ureterolysis in robotic transvaginal NOTES for the management of stage IV endometriosis with obliterated Cul-de-sac[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2023, 30(4): 266-267.
[7]	Dujardin C, Cosson M, Behal H, et al. Success of outpatient hysterectomy: V-Notes versus Vaginal hysterectomy[J]. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod, 2025, 54(4): 102916.
[8]	Yan Y, Li Q, Zhang C. Indocyanine green fluorescence-guided laparoscopic ureterolysis for complex gynecological surgeries[J]. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol, 2023, 50(6): 118.
[9]	Li Q, Zhang L, Fang F, et al. Research progress of indocyanine green fluorescence technology in gynecological applications[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2023, 165(3): 936-942.
[10]	Guan X, Yang Q, Lovell DY, et al. Application of "4-P" port anchoring in transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES): technique and initial feasibility[J]. J Robot Surg, 2025, 19: 473.
[11]	Chen J, Li M, Lai Y, et al. Comparative study of complications and incision esthetic satisfaction between single-port laparoscopy and traditional laparoscopy in benign gynecological surgery[J]. J Invest Surg, 2024, 37(1): 2419139.
[12]	Uwais A, Al-Abadleh A, Jahameh M, et al. A Comparison between Total Abdominal Hysterectomy versus Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy[J]. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther, 2024, 13(1): 43-47.
[13]	Tiwari KD, Dangal G, Karki A, et al. Clinical outcome of non-descent vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy[J]. J Nepal Health Res Counc, 2022, 20(2): 326-330.
[14]	Farah S, Albaini O, Al Jardali M, et al. The feasibility and safety of vNOTES hysterectomy and uterosacral ligament suspension: a case series[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2023, 30(5): 414-417.
[15]	Bulutlar E, Uluutku Bulutlar GB, Cilli LA, et al. vNOTES hysterectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: experiences and outcomes in a tertiary center[J]. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol, 2025, 34(4): 297-302.
[16]	Lovell DY, Yang Q, Guan X. SP Robot-assisted vNOTES for a right ovarian cystectomy[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2026, 33(3): 245-246.
[17]	Lee JH. Cutting-edge trends in da Vinci single-port robotic approaches to breast surgery: a narrative review[J]. Ann Surg Treat Res, 2026, 110(1): 12-18.
[18]	任常，张可欣，孙大为. 国产机器人在妇科单孔腹腔镜手术中的应用[J]. 中国临床新医学，2024, 17(6): 607-611.
[19]	Xu P, Zhao Z, Tian Y, et al. A retrospective analysis of robot-assisted total hysterectomy by transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery[J]. Heliyon, 2023, 9(9): e19207.
[20]	马周，易跃雄，李立安，等. 国产机器人单孔腹腔镜经脐隔离子宫肌瘤剔除术[J/OL]. 手术电子杂志，2022, 9(4): 5-6.
[21]	Zhang X, Li W, Chiu PWY, et al. A novel flexible robotic endoscope with constrained tendon-driven continuum mechanism[J]. IEEE Robot Autom Lett, 2020, 5(2): 1366-1372.
[22]	任常，张俊吉，孙大为. 国产SR-ENS-600单孔腹腔镜手术机器人系统应用于妇科良性疾病治疗的安全性和有效性初探——一项单臂研究[J]. 海军军医大学学报，2025, 46(11): 1414-1419.
[23]	Koythong T, Thigpen B, Sunkara S, et al. Surgical outcomes of hysterectomy via robot-assisted versus traditional transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2021, 28(12): 2028-2035.
[24]	Awada A, Byrd N, Ahmad S. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer[J]. Minerva Obstet Gynecol, 2025, 77(4): 316-324.
[25]	Soman U, Cela M. Fluorescence-guided bladder and ureter visualization in benign robotic gynecologic surgery: a series of five cases[J]. Cureus, 2025, 17(12): e98847.
[26]	Park SY, Cho EH, Jeong K, et al. Robotic single-port hysterectomy versus robotic multisite hysterectomy in benign gynecologic diseases: A retrospective comparison of clinical and surgical outcomes[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2023, 49(11): 2746-2752.
[27]	Ota K, Ota Y, Kawamura S, et al. Feasible techniques named " pure" robotic simple hysterectomy with 4 robotic arms "4＋0" mode for hysterectomy in da Vinci Xi[J]. Asian J Endosc Surg, 2025, 18(1): e13419.
[28]	Zhang X, Li W, Chiu PWY, et al. A novel flexible robotic endoscope with constrained tendon-driven continuum mechanism[J]. IEEE Robot Autom Lett, 2020, 5(2): 1366-1372.
[29]	Miyamura H, Takada K, Ohwaki A, et al. Initial experience and surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted total hysterectomy using the da Vinci SP surgical system[J]. Asian J Endosc Surg, 2024, 17(2): e13298.
[30]	Balgobin S, Balk EM, Porter AE, et al. Enabling technologies for gynecologic vaginal surgery: a systematic review[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2024, 143(4): 524-537.
[31]	Hoshikawa Y, Ishizawa H. Robotic mediastinal tumor surgery using da Vinci single-port (SP) surgical system[J]. Kyobu Geka, 2025, 78(10): 849-855.

指标	达芬奇组(n＝87)	术锐组(n＝54)	P值
年龄(岁)	52.3±7.8	52.1±8.2	0.782
BMI (kg/m²)	24.6±3.4	24.4±3.6	0.645
孕次	3.1±1.4	2.9±1.6	0.523
产次	1.6±0.7	1.4±0.9	0.391
分娩方式[例(%)]
顺产	61(70.1)	38(70.4)	0.912
剖宫产	26(29.9)	16(29.6)
腹部手术史[例(%)]	39(44.8)	24(44.4)	0.876
经阴道手术史[例(%)]	4(4.6)	3(5.6)	0.734
子宫体积(cm³)	360±260	340±240	0.523

指标	达芬奇组(n＝87)	术锐组(n＝54)	P值
年龄(岁)	52.3±7.8	52.1±8.2	0.782
BMI (kg/m²)	24.6±3.4	24.4±3.6	0.645
孕次	3.1±1.4	2.9±1.6	0.523
产次	1.6±0.7	1.4±0.9	0.391
分娩方式[例(%)]
顺产	61(70.1)	38(70.4)	0.912
剖宫产	26(29.9)	16(29.6)
腹部手术史[例(%)]	39(44.8)	24(44.4)	0.876
经阴道手术史[例(%)]	4(4.6)	3(5.6)	0.734
子宫体积(cm³)	360±260	340±240	0.523

指标	达芬奇组(n＝87)	术锐组(n＝54)	P值
装机时间(min)	8.1±1.5	3.2±0.8	<0.001
操作时间(min)	108±16	112±18	0.234
失血量(ml)	95±75	105±85	0.489
术中粘连[例(%)]	26(29.9)	16(29.6)	0.912
中转经脐[例(%)]	1(1.1)	0(0)	－
术后24 h疼痛评分(分)	2.9±1.3	2.7±1.1	0.328
术后1周疼痛评分(分)	1.3±0.9	1.2±0.7	0.457
首次下床时间(h)	11.8±3.9	12.2±4.1	0.603
首次小便时间(h)	7.9±1.9	8.1±2.1	0.528
首次大便时间(d)	2.4±0.9	2.6±1.1	0.374

指标	达芬奇组(n＝87)	术锐组(n＝54)	P值
装机时间(min)	8.1±1.5	3.2±0.8	<0.001
操作时间(min)	108±16	112±18	0.234
失血量(ml)	95±75	105±85	0.489
术中粘连[例(%)]	26(29.9)	16(29.6)	0.912
中转经脐[例(%)]	1(1.1)	0(0)	－
术后24 h疼痛评分(分)	2.9±1.3	2.7±1.1	0.328
术后1周疼痛评分(分)	1.3±0.9	1.2±0.7	0.457
首次下床时间(h)	11.8±3.9	12.2±4.1	0.603
首次小便时间(h)	7.9±1.9	8.1±2.1	0.528
首次大便时间(d)	2.4±0.9	2.6±1.1	0.374

并发症	达芬奇组(n＝87)	术锐组(n＝54)	P值
输尿管损伤	0(0%)	0(0%)	－
膀胱损伤	1(1.1%)	0(0%)	0.617
尿潴留	4(4.6%)	3(5.6%)	0.832
延迟出血	1(1.1%)	0(0%)	0.617
二次手术	0(0%)	0(0%)	－
感染	2(2.3%)	1(1.9%)	0.891
盆腔血肿	1(1.1%)	0(0%)	0.617

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export