ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2017
Success rate of natural orifice specimen extraction after laparoscopic colorectal resections.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04394988 (Total 102 Natural Orifice Specimen Extractions Following Laparoscopic Colorectal Resections), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Total 102 Natural Orifice Specimen Extractions Following Laparoscopic Colorectal Resections
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transvaginal versus transabdominal specimen extraction in minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Cosmesis and feasibility of transvaginal natural orifice Specimen extraction (NOSE) for large organ specimen: a prospective pilot study.BMC urology · 2022Trial
- Observational
- Laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction subtotal colectomy for redundant colon: a retrospective parallel-cohort comparative study with reduced surgical site infections and accelerated recovery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- The initial experience of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.Turkish journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Short-term clinical effects and inflammatory response of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for the treatment of sigmoid and rectal cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- Evaluating short-term and survival outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: A single-centre retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Influence of transvaginal laparoscopic surgery on sexual function, life quality and short-term efficacy of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Article
- Minimally invasive right colectomy with transrectal natural orifice extraction: could this be the next step forward?Techniques in coloproctology · 2020Article
- Transanal hybrid colon resection: techniques and outcomes for benign colorectal diseases.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Safety and Feasibility of Robotic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery in Colorectal Neoplasms During the Initial Learning Curve.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery with rectal eversion and total extra-abdominal resection.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Article
- International consensus on natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for colorectal cancer.Gastroenterology report · 2019Article
- Left colon resection with transrectal specimen extraction: current status.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Review
- Natural orifice specimen extraction in colorectal surgery: patient selection and perspectives.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Short-term outcomes of overlapped delta-shaped anastomosis, an innovative intracorporeal anastomosis technique, in totally laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Observational
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
purposeTo date, no data have been available to inform which cases are appropriate for natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) after laparoscopic colorectal resections (LCRRs). Our aim was to evaluate the success rate and the factors affecting the failure in patients who were scheduled for NOSE after LCRRs.
methodsSeventy-two consecutive cases that were intended for NOSE after LCRR were enrolled. The transanal route was always chosen as the first option, and when it failed, the transvaginal route was tried in female patients. If both failed, the specimen was judged as unsuitable for NOSE and removed through an abdominal wall incision. Demographic data, surgical indications, resection localization, implemented procedures, incision sites, specimen extraction methods, specimen sizes, and failures of NOSE were recorded.
resultsA total of 349 colorectal resections (240 open and 109 laparoscopic) in a 3-year period were examined. The subset of 72 consecutive patients who met the criteria were analyzed. Five cases required a conversion to open surgery during resections. In the remaining 67 patients, NOSE after LCRR was successful in 49 cases (73.1%) but failed in 18 (26.9%). Specimens were extracted from transanal and transvaginal routes in 37 (75.5%) and 12 (24.5%) patients, respectively. The failure rate of NOSE after LCRR was higher in males, in colonic lesions, and in large-sized tumors. The mean sizes of transanal and transvaginal extracted specimens were 3.5 ± 3.1 and 5.4 ± 1.4 cm, respectively (p < 0.05). The mean size of the tumors in the failed cases was 6.5 ± 4.2 cm (p < 0.05).
conclusionsApproximately 2/3 of the unselected LCRRs were suitable for NOSE. The success rate increased with female gender, small-sized tumors, and rectal resections.
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.