ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2017
Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery.
Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Colorectal resection via natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic extraction: a meta-analysis with meta-regression.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of the transanal surgical techniques for local excision of rectal tumors: a network meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Pooled it
- Watch and wait in locally advanced rectal cancer: Evolution, current evidence, and future directions.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- 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
- Complex Procedures in Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery: Intraperitoneal Entry, Ultra Large Rectal Tumors, High Lesions, and Resection in the Anal Canal.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022Review
- Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery: a case series.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Transanal endoscopic microsurgery in very large and ultra large rectal neoplasia.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) techniques encompass a variety of approaches, including transanal endoscopic microsurgery and transanal minimally invasive surgery. These allow a surgeon to perform local excision of rectal lesions with minimal morbidity and the potential to spare the need for proctectomy. As understanding of the long-term outcomes from these procedures has evolved, so have the indications for TES. In this study, we review the development of TES, its early results, and the evolution of new surgical techniques. In addition, we evaluate the most recent research on indications and outcomes in rectal cancer.
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.