SynthesisBJS open2022
Natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transvaginal versus transabdominal specimen extraction in minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Observational
- Conventional laparoscopic segmental bowel resection with mini-laparotomy specimen extraction compared with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction (NOSE) procedures in patients with colorectal endometriosis.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2026Article
- Review
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colon Cancer: Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes since the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Trial.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025Review
- Tips and tricks for transluminal specimen extraction and extra-abdominal sigmoid colon resection.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Article
- Short-term outcomes of Transrectal Natural Orifice Specimen extraction compared with conventional minimally invasive surgery for selected patients with colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis and literature review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- 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
- Article
- Efficacy of natural duct specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a single-centre retrospective analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2024Article
- Simultaneous laparoscopic liver metastasectomy and intersphincteric resection for neuroendocrine tumor of the rectum by natural orifice specimen extraction surgery.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic Sigmoidectomy With Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction: A Single-Center Experience.Cureus · 2023Article
- Article
- Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, specimen extraction: transanal or transabdominal?BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Transvaginal versus transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for right colon cancer: A propensity matching study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) is a technique that involves collecting a specimen for extraction through a natural opening avoiding a mini-laparotomy incision. The aim of this study was to compare NOSE and transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic (LAP) colorectal cancer surgery for postoperative outcomes and oncological safety.
methodA systematic search was conducted in five electronic databases from inception till October 2020. Articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria (studies comparing LAP and NOSE colorectal surgeries reporting at least one of the outcomes) and analysed. Primary outcomes included postoperative complications, pathological results (resection margins and lymph node collection), and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes included operating time, blood losses, use of analgesics, functional recovery, duration of hospital stay, and cosmetic results. Fixed and random-effect models were used to measure the pooled estimates.
resultsNineteen studies involving a total of 3432 participants were analysed (3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 16 retrospective non-randomized studies). Pooled results showed significantly reduced postoperative complications (OR 0.54; 95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.67; P < 0.00001). Pathological outcomes of NOSE were comparable to LAP with no significant difference noted in terms of resection margins (P > 0.05) and lymph node collection (weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.47; 95 per cent c.i. -0.94 to 0; P = 0.05). Pooled analysis demonstrated comparable long-term outcomes in terms of cancer recurrence (OR 0.94; 95 per cent c.i. 0.63 to 1.39; P = 0.75), 5-year disease-free survival (HR 0.97; 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 1.29; P = 0.83), and overall survival (HR 0.93, 95 per cent c.i. 0.58 to -1.51; P = 0.78). Finally, the NOSE group had decreased use of additional analgesia after surgery and earlier resumption of oral intake when compared with LAP (respectively OR 0.28; 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.37; P < 0.00001 and WMD -0.35; 95 per cent c.i. -0.54 to -0.15; P = 0.0005).
conclusionThis meta-analysis showed that in comparison with LAP, NOSE decreases severe postoperative morbidity while improving postoperative recovery without compromising oncological safety, but it is limited by the small number of RCTs performed in this field.
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.