ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2021
A Novel Method of Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) during Laparoscopic Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We propose a modification to the reconstruction method of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) during laparoscopic anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer (RC) and evaluated its feasibility and short-term safety by comparing surgical and postoperative outcomes with those of conventional LAR. Twenty patients with RC underwent "double-purse" NOSES-LAR from October 2017 to June 2018. Data of clinicopathological characteristics, surgical and postoperative outcomes, and follow-up findings in NOSES-LAR cases were collected and retrospectively compared with those of conventional LAR to clarify the clinical benefits. The median postoperative hospital stay was lower in the double-purse NOSES group than the conventional group (6.6 vs. 7.1 days, respectively). In the conventional group, anastomotic leakage and incision site infection occurred in one patient each. In contrast, there were no complications in the double-purse group. There were no significant differences in blood loss, surgical duration, and time of the first flatus between the two groups. Additionally, "double-purse" NOSES-LAR was more economical than the conventional LAR. "Double-purse" NOSES-LAR is a safe, feasible, and minimally invasive promising procedure for LAR of RC with faster recovery, while requiring less surgical skills and lower clinical costs.
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.