ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- A randomized controlled trial comparing robotic NOSES versus robotic TME for Mid-rectal cancer: short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Trial
- 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
- Sphincter-preserving surgical techniques in low rectal cancer management: A systematic review of contemporary evidence.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Outcomes of high BMI colorectal cancer patients with natural orifice specimen extraction surgery: a propensity-score matching study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- 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
- Application of the Xi robotic platform for familial adenomatous polyposis with ultra-low rectal cancer: exploration of minimally invasive and refined therapies.Journal of robotic 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
- Comparative short-term and survival outcomes of three specimen extraction techniques in laparoscopic low rectal cancer surgery: does it affect ileostomy closure?BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Review
- Transvaginal versus transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for right colon cancer: A propensity matching study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Application of the natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type E method combined with 3D laparoscopy in sphincter-preserving surgery of low rectal cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is an intra-abdominal procedure that does not require an auxiliary incision to take a surgical sample from the abdominal wall through the natural orifice, but there are few systematic clinical studies on it. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of NOSES. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data and follow-up of 165 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent NOSES or conventional laparoscopic surgery at our center from January 2013 to June 2015. From the perioperative data and postoperative follow-up results of both groups, patients in the NOSES group had less intraoperative bleeding (49.3 ± 55.8 ml vs. 75.1 ± 57.3 ml, p = 0.02), shorter postoperative gastrointestinal recovery (42.3 ± 15.5 h vs. 50.1 ± 17.0 h, p = 0.01), less postoperative analgesic use (35.6% vs. 57.6%, p = 0.02), lower postoperative pain scores, lower rate of postoperative complications (6.8% vs. 25.4%, p = 0.01), better satisfaction of the image and cosmesis of the abdominal wall postoperatively, and higher quality of life. Moreover, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between two groups. Overall, NOSES is a safe and reliable minimally invasive surgical technique for patients with low rectal cancer.
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.