ArticleCancer management and research2021
Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery versus Conventional Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Score Matching Study.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Clinical Study of Robotic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery for Right Colon Cancer].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Review
- Reduced-port laparoscopic right colonic resection with D3 lymph node dissection and transvaginal specimen extraction (NOSES VIIIa) for right colon cancer: clinical features.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
- Advancing mid-rectal cancer surgery: Unveiling the potential of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in comparison to conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Article
- Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type F methodWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in short-terms outcomes of middle rectal cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Short-term clinical effects and inflammatory response of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for the treatment of sigmoid and rectal cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- Evaluating short-term and survival outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: A single-centre retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Transvaginal versus transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for right colon cancer: A propensity matching study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional robotic resection for patients with colorectal neoplasms.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Development and future perspectives of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for gastric cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Review
- Outcomes after natural orifice extractionWorld journal of clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- Influence of transvaginal laparoscopic surgery on sexual function, life quality and short-term efficacy of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Role of Phenotypes of Circulating Tumor Cells in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.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
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been successfully applied to the treatment of gastric, colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the development of NOSES is still in the exploratory stage, and there is still no strong evidence-based medical evidence. PATIENTS AND
methodsFrom January 2013 to June 2017, consecutive patients with colorectal cancer who underwent transluminal resection, anastomosis, and specimen extraction and those who underwent conventional laparoscopic resection were enrolled. Propensity score matching was used to align clinicopathological features between the two groups.
resultsA total of 372 patients were eventually included in this study, 186 in each group. According to perioperative information and postoperative follow-up in both groups, the NOSES group had less blood loss (P = 0.011), shorter time to recovery of gastrointestinal function (P < 0.001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.037). The NOSES group had fewer postoperative analgesics (P < 0.001), lower postoperative pain scores (P < 0.001), and lower incidence of postoperative complications (P = 0.017). Compared with the LA (laparoscopic) group, the NOSES group had better physical function (P<0.05), role function (P<0.001), emotional function (P<0.001) and global health status than LA group, while symptoms such as pain (P<0.001), insomnia (P<0.001), constipation (P<0.001) and diarrhea (P<0.05) were less severe in the NOSES group. In addition, the NOSES group had higher body image scores. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were not significantly different between the two groups.
conclusionFor surgical treatment of colorectal cancer, NOSES has advantages in reducing postoperative pain, recovery of gastrointestinal function, postoperative quality of life, and improving patients' satisfaction with abdominal wall aesthetics. There was no difference in long-term survival between NOSES and conventional laparoscopic surgery.
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.