ReviewFrontiers in surgery2023
Comparison of transabdominal wall specimen retrieval and natural orifice specimen extraction robotic surgery in the outcome of colorectal cancer treatment.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of safety and effectiveness between natural orifice specimen extraction and conventional transabdominal specimen extraction in robot-assisted colorectal cancer resection through systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of robotic-assisted NOSE versus traditional TWSR in colorectal cancer surgery: postoperative outcomes and efficacy.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Application of double purse-string anastomosis in optimizing laparoscopic NOSES surgery for rectal cancer under the payment system of DRGs.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction subtotal colectomy for redundant colon: a retrospective parallel-cohort comparative study with reduced surgical site infections and accelerated recovery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Expanding the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery: the feasibility of robotic natural orifice transluminal extraction colectomy and robotic no-incision colectomy in colorectal practice.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- 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
- Efficacy of natural duct specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a single-centre retrospective analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES), as a new star of minimally invasive techniques, has been increasingly favored and promoted in the field of surgery around the world. Most previous studies were comparative studies of laparoscopic NOSES and conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, there is little research on comparing robotic colorectal cancer NOSES with conventional robotic-assisted colorectal cancer resection surgery. Participant and methods: This study is a retrospective study of propensity score matching (PSM). This study included Ninety-one propensity score-matched pairs of the participant who had undergone robotic colorectal cancer resection surgery at our center between January 2017 and December 2020. The covariates used in the propensity score included gender, age, BMI, ASA score, maximum tumor diameter, the tumor's height from the anal verge, histological differentiation, AJCC stage, T stage, N stage, and history of previous abdominal surgery. The outcome measurement criteria included postoperative complications, inflammatory response, pelvic floor function, anal function, cosmetic outcome, quality of life, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: The robotic NOSES group had faster recovery time from gastrointestinal function ( Conclusion: Robotic colorectal cancer NOSES is a safe and feasible minimally invasive procedure and offers shorter abdominal incisions, less pain, less surgical stress response, and better postoperative quality of life. Therefore, this technique can be further promoted for colorectal cancer patients eligible for NOSES.
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.