ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Complete laparoscopic resection of the rectum using natural orifice specimen extraction.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of the safety and effectiveness of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal tumors through systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of safety and effectiveness between natural orifice specimen extraction and conventional transabdominal specimen extraction in robot-assisted colorectal cancer resection through systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of robotic-assisted NOSE versus traditional TWSR in colorectal cancer surgery: postoperative outcomes and efficacy.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Safety and oncological outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2022Pooled it
- The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic NOSE for sigmoid and rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopy for colorectal cancer.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Colorectal resection via natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic extraction: a meta-analysis with meta-regression.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE-LAR) versus abdominal incision specimen extraction (AISE-LAR) for sigmoid or rectal tumors.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Safety and Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic NOSE Surgery Compared With Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Diseases: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Laparoscopic resection with natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopy for colorectal disease: a meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2015Pooled it
- Application of double purse-string anastomosis in optimizing laparoscopic NOSES surgery for rectal cancer under the payment system of DRGs.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Natural orifice specimen extraction for diverticular disease: technique, outcomes and role of inflammatory markers.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Short-term outcomes of Transrectal Natural Orifice Specimen extraction compared with conventional minimally invasive surgery for selected patients with colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis and literature review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- The robotic NICE procedure outperforms conventional laparoscopic extracorporeal-assisted colorectal resection: results of a matched cohort analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Success rates and outcomes of the robotic NICE procedure across complicated and uncomplicated diverticulitis cases.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction, a minimally invasive surgical technique for mid-rectal cancers: Retrospective single-center analysis and single-surgeon experience of selected patients.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Article
- Carbon nanoparticle-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery with left colic artery preservation: a retrospective study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022Article
- Short- and long-term outcomes as well as anal function of transanal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon or rectal cancer resection: a retrospective study with over 5-year follow-up.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate how complete laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE), as a novel minimally invasive surgery, compares to conventional laparoscopic surgery.
methodsTwenty patients who underwent complete laparoscopic anterior resection with NOSE and 50 patients who underwent laparoscopic assisted anterior resection by the conventional method between 2011 and 2012 were studied. Selection for complete laparoscopic anterior resection with NOSE was decided on the basis of tumor size, localization of the tumor, and body mass index. Outcomes related to surgery, including operation time, postoperative wound pain, hospital stay after surgery, the number of totally dissected lymph nodes, postoperative complications (suture failure and wound infection), and anal function, were reviewed retrospectively. Anal function was assessed at 3 and 6 mo after surgery using the Wexner fecal incontinence scoring system.
resultsComplete laparoscopic resection with NOSE was performed to completion in all 20 patients. There was no patient emergency that required conversion to conventional laparoscopic surgery or open surgery. The comparison between complete laparoscopic resection with NOSE and conventional laparoscopic surgery showed no significant differences in the maximal diameter of the tumor, number of totally dissected lymph nodes, bleeding volume, mean operation time, time to start of oral ingestion, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications. On the other hand, with regard to pain after epidural anesthesia, the total usage of analgesia in this novel surgical technique was 1.85 ± 1.8 times, whereas it was 5.89 ± 2.86 in conventional laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.001). The postoperative pain period was 1.9 ± 1.9 d in this novel surgical technique, whereas it was 3.43 ± 1.41 d in conventional laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.004). In complete laparoscopic surgery with NOSE, the mean postoperative follow-up period was 20 mo (range: 12-30 mo). Neither local recurrence nor remote metastasis was observed during the follow-up period.
conclusionComplete laparoscopic anterior resection using NOSE does not require any incision and has excellent cosmetic properties, with mitigated postoperative pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.