ReviewClinical and experimental gastroenterology2018
Natural orifice specimen extraction in colorectal surgery: patient selection and perspectives.
Review in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: meta-analysis.BJS open · 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
- Cosmesis and feasibility of transvaginal natural orifice Specimen extraction (NOSE) for large organ specimen: a prospective pilot study.BMC urology · 2022Trial
- Conventional laparoscopic segmental bowel resection with mini-laparotomy specimen extraction compared with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction (NOSE) procedures in patients with colorectal endometriosis.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2026Article
- Application of double purse-string anastomosis in optimizing laparoscopic NOSES surgery for rectal cancer under the payment system of DRGs.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- 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
- Review
- Article
- Expanding the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery: the feasibility of robotic natural orifice transluminal extraction colectomy and robotic no-incision colectomy in colorectal practice.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- Robotic intracorporeal single-stapling versus double-stapling anastomosis in left-sided colorectal cancer: a propensity score-weighted pilot study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Natural orifice specimen extraction for diverticular disease: technique, outcomes and role of inflammatory markers.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Comparison of side-to-side anastomosis vs. end-to-end anastomosis in NOSES operation for left colon cancer: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Transvaginal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for left-sided colorectal resection: A single-centre cohort study.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- Advancing mid-rectal cancer surgery: Unveiling the potential of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in comparison to conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Robotic Sigmoidectomy With Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction: A Single-Center Experience.Cureus · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, specimen extraction: transanal or transabdominal?BMC surgery · 2023Article
- 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
- The Nuts and Bolts of Implementing a Modified ERAS Protocol for Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: Group Practice vs. Solo Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past 30 years, colorectal surgery has evolved to include minimally invasive surgical techniques. Minimally invasive surgery is associated with reduced postoperative pain, reduced wound complications, earlier return of bowel function, and possibly shorter length of hospital stay. These benefits have been attributed to a reduction in operative trauma compared to open surgery. The need to extract the specimen in colorectal operations through a "mini-laparotomy" can negate many of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) is the opening of a hollow viscus that already communicates with the outside world, such as the vagina or distal gastrointestinal tract, in order to remove a specimen. The premise of this technique is to reduce the trauma required to remove the specimen with the expectation that this may improve outcomes. Reduction in postoperative analgesic use, quicker return of bowel function, and shorter length of hospital stay have been observed in colorectal operations with NOSE compared to conventional specimen extraction. While the feasibility of NOSE has been demonstrated in colorectal surgery, failures of this technique have also been described. Selection of patients who can successfully undergo NOSE needs further investigation. This review aims to guide surgeons in appropriately selecting patients for NOSE in colorectal surgery. Patient and specimen characteristics are reviewed in order to define patient populations in which NOSE is likely to be successful. Randomized trials comparing NOSE to conventional specimen extraction in colorectal surgery tend to enroll patients with favorable characteristics (body mass index <30, American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≤3, specimen diameter <6.5 cm) and demonstrate improved outcomes. Adopters of NOSE should restrict using this technique to the populations in which feasibility has been defined in the literature. Wider application to other populations, particularly patients with body mass index >30 and those with significant comorbidities, requires further study.
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.