ArticleScientific reports2021
Role of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in colorectal neoplasms.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of the safety and effectiveness of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal tumors through systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Is the NICE procedure the great equalizer for patients with high BMI undergoing resection for diverticulitis?Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Progress, challenges, and future perspectives of robot-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: a review.BMC surgery · 2024Review
- Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for early-stage rectal cancer: a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis (in China).Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Comparison of the safety and efficacy of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional robotic colorectal cancer resection: a propensity score matching study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional robotic resection for patients with colorectal neoplasms.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Comparison of transabdominal wall specimen retrieval and natural orifice specimen extraction robotic surgery in the outcome of colorectal cancer treatment.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Multi-quadrant Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Synchronous Tumours Involving the Genitourinary System - Our Experience.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- 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
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
Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is especially suitable for colorectal surgery. Until now, most of the reports published were about laparoscopic NOSES, the reports about robotic NOSES are extremely rare. This study aims to explore the safety and feasibility of robotic NOSES for colorectal neoplasms. All patients underwent robotic NOSES from March 2016 to October 2019 in our hospital were enrolled for retrospective analysis. Clinicopathological data including patient characteristics, perioperative information and pathological information were collected and analyzed. According to the distance between tumor and anus or whether neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nRCT) is performed, we grouped the cases and studied its influence on robotic NOSES. Also, we compared the previous reports on laparoscopic NOSES with our study and revealed advantages of robotic NOSES in terms of safety and feasibility. A total of 180 patients were enrolled. The average distance from the lower edge of the tumor to the anus was (8.64 ± 3.64) cm and maximum circumferential diameter (CDmax) of specimen was (3.5 ± 1.6) cm. In terms of safety, the average operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay were (187.5 ± 78.3) min, (47.4 ± 34) mL, and (11.3 ± 7.5) days, respectively. In terms of feasibility, the average number of lymph node harvested was (14.8 ± 5). Robotic NOSES shows advantages in terms of safety and feasibility compared with laparoscopic NOSES. This procedure could not only be a safe procedure but also could achieve good oncological outcomes.
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.