ArticleSurgery today2020
Prospective multicenter study of reduced port surgery combined with transvaginal specimen extraction for colorectal cancer resection.
Article in Surgery today, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study with conventional laparoscopic surgery.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Totally laparoscopic resection of right-sided colon cancer using transvaginal specimen extraction with a 10-mm-long abdominal incision.Techniques in coloproctology · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe relevance of transvaginal specimen extraction (TVSE) combined with reduced port surgery (RPS) remains unknown. This study investigated the feasibility of TVSE with RPS according to short-term outcomes and cosmesis.
methodsThis prospective multicenter study enrolled ten patients at three institutions. For the semi-quantification of each parameter, we administered questionnaires to assess pain (visual analogue scale), subjective/objective wound healing esthetics [photo series questionnaires (PSQ)], and quality of life (QOL).
resultsNo operative complications occurred, except one case of urinary tract infection, which was promptly cured with antibiotics. On day 0, pain was rated at 2.3 ± 0.67 at rest and 4.9 ± 0.82 during sneezing; these ratings gradually declined over time. The PSQ showed that the patient ratings of wound esthetics after TVSE were not inferior to ratings from patients after conventional laparoscopy or single incision laparoscopic surgery, and they were significantly higher than the patient ratings of wounds after laparotomy (P < 0.05). The QOL scores showed that, in comparison to before surgery, after surgery, patients reported significant deterioration of their physical function (96.67 ± 1.49 vs. 87.33 ± 2.71), emotional function (93.33 ± 2.72 vs. 86.67 ± 2.22), fatigue (7.78 ± 3.72 vs. 26.67 ± 8.31), and pain (6.67 ± 3.69 vs. 18.33 ± 4.61).
conclusionTVSE with RPS for colorectal cancer was feasible and was associated with a low degree of 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.