Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35571383›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022

Short-term and long-term outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgeries (NOSES) in rectal cancer: a comparison study of NOSES and non-NOSES.

Qian Zhang, Meng Wang, Dening Ma, Weiyuan Zhang, Hongyu Wu, Yuchen Zhong, Chaojing Zheng, Haixing Ju, Guiyu Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type F methodWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Qian ZhangDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, the Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China.
Meng WangDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, the Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China.
Dening MaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, the Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China.
Weiyuan ZhangDepartment of Colorectal Cancer Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Hongyu WuDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, the Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China.
Yuchen ZhongDepartment of Colorectal Cancer Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Chaojing ZhengDepartment of Colorectal Cancer Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Haixing JuDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, the Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China.
Guiyu WangDepartment of Colorectal Cancer Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Natural orifice specimen extraction surgeries (NOSES) have been applied to colorectal cancer (CRC). Different types of NOSES have been proposed. Traditional laparoscopic CRC surgeries (non-NOSES) have been widely adopted in clinical practice. Therefore, the safety and feasibility of NOSES could be clarified by comparing with non-NOSES. Methods: Consecutive cases who underwent NOSE or non-NOSE rectal surgeries were retrospectively collected at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018. Other inclusion criteria included patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum within 15 cm of the anal verge, over the age of 18 and undergoing primary laparoscopic rectal resection. Patients who were lost to follow-up or had incomplete information were excluded. Basic characteristics including gender, tumor location, age, staging, treatment, and Body Mass Index (BMI) were analyzed. Short-term outcomes including comorbidities, intra-operative blood loss, hospital stay, gas exhaust time were compared between different NOSES and non-NOSES groups. Long-term outcomes including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were also analyzed. Patients were followed-up during the inpatient period, at an outpatient clinic, or by phone call. Results: A total of 196 NOSES cases and 243 non-NOSES cases were included. There was a sex difference between the two groups and other factors were comparable. Cases were divided into NOSES groups [including extra-abdominal resection (EVER), specimen extraction and extra-abdominal resection (EXER), and intra-abdominal resection and specimen extraction (IREX)] and non-NOSES groups. Differences in sex (P=0.016), BMI (with mean of 22.08, 22.00, 22.53, and 23.26 kg/m2, P=0.003), and staging (P=0.008) were observed between the four groups. There was a difference in the intra-operative blood loss between NOSES and non-NOSES groups (57.05±62.78, 52.65±68.19, 36.52±43.99 Conclusions: NOSES in rectal cancer showed better short-term outcomes and had comparable long-term outcomes compared with non-NOSE surgeries.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancer (CRC)long-termnatural orifice specimen extraction surgeries (NOSES)outcomeshort-term

Identifiers

PMID35571383
PMCPMC9096365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.