ArticleJournal of oncology2020
The Comparison of Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction versus Mini-Laparotomy Specimen Extraction for Colorectal Tumours: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes.
Article in Journal of oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of robotic-assisted NOSE versus traditional TWSR in colorectal cancer surgery: postoperative outcomes and efficacy.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Safety and oncological outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2022Pooled it
- Colorectal resection via natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic extraction: a meta-analysis with meta-regression.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Safety and Efficacy of Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic (vNOTES) Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for anterior resection.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Article
- Bacteriological and oncological safety of complete laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer without incision anastomosis based on propensity-matched scores.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Article
- 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
- Short- and long-term outcomes as well as anal function of transanal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon or rectal cancer resection: a retrospective study with over 5-year follow-up.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022Article
- Is Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery Really Safe in Radical Surgery for Colorectal Cancer?Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Role of minimally invasive techniques in gastrointestinal surgery: Current status and future perspectives.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aims of this study were to compare the short-term outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLAPS) for colorectal tumours and to evaluate the safety and feasibility of NOSES in colorectal resection.
methodsA literature review was performed on the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to March 2019. Papers conforming to the inclusion criteria were used for further analysis. The short-term outcomes included intraoperative outcomes and postoperative recovery results. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated for continuous outcomes and odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous results. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) or the 6-item Jadad scale.
resultsEight studies comprising 686 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with CLAPS, NOSES had more advantages in terms of postoperative complications, postoperative pain, recovery of gastrointestinal function, duration of hospital stay, and cosmetic results. The lymph nodes harvested and intraoperative blood loss in NOSES were comparable with CLAPS; however, a prolonged operative time was observed in NOSES.
conclusionsNOSES was shown to be a safe and viable alternative to CLAPS in colorectal oncology in terms of short-term results. Further long-term and randomized trials are required.
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.