ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2020
Clinical efficacy and quality of life after transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction for the treatment of middle and upper rectal cancer.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Multi-database bibliometric analysis and cross-database comparison of NOSES research in colorectal cancer: integrated evidence from WoSCC and PubMed.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Which site is better for prophylactic ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery? By the specimen extraction site or new site: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2022Pooled it
- The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic NOSE for sigmoid and rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Pooled it
- Quality of life, anxiety and depression risks after natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer patients: a prospective two-centre case-matched study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus totally laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer: a single-centre propensity score-matched study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Efficacy comparison of optimal natural orifice specimen extraction for robotic middle rectal cancer resection in women: transanal or transvaginal orifice.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Short-term outcomes of Transrectal Natural Orifice Specimen extraction compared with conventional minimally invasive surgery for selected patients with colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis and literature review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Short-term and long-term outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgeries (NOSES) in rectal cancer: a comparison study of NOSES and non-NOSES.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery versus Conventional Surgery in Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2022Review
- Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery versus Conventional Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Score Matching Study.Cancer management and research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) avoids extra abdominal extraction incision during colorectal surgery. Some surgeons realized the benefits of NOSE on clinical efficacy. We compared the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic NOSE, laparoscopic non-NOSE and open surgery (OS) for short-term recovery and quality of life (QoL).
methodsA single randomized controlled trial of NOSE for middle and upper rectal cancer between April 2014 and February 2018. Preoperative and postoperative clinical variables were analyzed and compared between the groups. Preoperative and 6 months postoperative QoL was assessed with the SF-36 QoL questionnaire.
resultsA total of 378 patients were enrolled, 334 patients randomly divided into NOSE group (n=104), non-NOSE group (n=119), OS group (n=111). The NOSE group was superior to the other two groups on the QoL after surgery. The NOSE group had the lowest postoperative VAS score between three groups. The postoperative time for bowel function recovery and the length of hospital stay was statistically significantly different among the three groups, with the NOSE group having the shortest time. The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in the NOSE group (12/104, 11.5%) than in the non-NOSE group (20/119, 16.8%), the difference was statistically significant. The Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival curve showed no statistically significant difference in the disease-free survival (DFS) rate between the three groups.
conclusionsComparing NOSE to non-NOSE and OS, the NOSE had significantly better functional recovery and better QoL. The NOSE group had a significant lower surgical complication rate than the non-NOSE group.
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.