ArticleAsian journal of urology2020
Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in urology: The Chinese experience.
Article in Asian journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic transvaginal hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) nephrectomy: clinical experience with 23 cases.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Endoscopic image classification algorithm based on Poolformer.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety of transvaginal natural endoscopic surgery and transumbilical single port laparoscopy surgery for endometrial cancer.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Transvaginal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) in 3D laparoscopic partial or radical nephrectomy: a preliminary study.BMC urology · 2021Article
- Comparison of Transvaginal and Transumbilical Laparoscopic Single-Site Surgery for Ovarian Cysts.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the Chinese experience of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in urology.
methodsFrom December 2008 to May 2017, 35 animal experiments and 305 clinical surgeries of NOTES or natural orifices specimen extractions (NOSE) were performed in China. The animal experiments included five kidney biopsies, 24 nephrectomies and six partial nephrectomies. The clinical surgeries included 12 transvaginal NOSE (TV-NOSE), 266 hybrid transvaginal NOTES (TV-NOTES) and 27 pure TV-NOTES. The TV-NOSE procedure was performed in five transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site (U-LESS) nephrectomies, four suprapubic-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (SA-LESS) nephroureterectomies, and three laparoscopic radical cystectomies. The hybrid TV-NOTES procedure included 210 nephrectomies, 31 adrenalectomies, eight nephroureterectomies, 13 partial nephrectomies, and four heminephrectomies. The pure TV-NOTES procedure included five renal cyst decortications and 22 nephrectomies.
resultsA total of 29 animal experiments were successfully performed. One partial nephrectomy was converted to standard laparoscopic surgery. Two kidney biopsies and two nephrectomies were unsuccessful. A total of 297 clinical surgeries were successfully performed. Six patients who underwent hybrid TV-NOTES were converted to open surgery. Two patients who underwent pure TV-NOTES were converted to SA-LESS. There were 22 major complications, 16 occurred intraoperatively and six postoperatively. The mean visual analog score (VAS) of 48 h after the operation was 2.5 points in TV-NOSE, 2.3 points in hybrid TV-NOTES and 1.7 points in pure TV-NOTES. The mean follow-up of 50.6 (3.0-87.0) months showed that all patients were in good condition. The umbilicus scars were nearly invisible in TV-NOSE and hybrid TV-NOTES. The vaginal incision healed well.
conclusionsTV-NOSE and TV-NOTES are feasible, safe, and effective with little injury, low pain, fast recovery, and good cosmetic outcomes in properly selected patients. They are worth consideration for urological clinical practice.
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.