Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36874472›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2023

Comparison of transabdominal wall specimen retrieval and natural orifice specimen extraction robotic surgery in the outcome of colorectal cancer treatment.

Ju Houqiong, Wan Ziwen, Zhong Chonghan, He Penghui, Yu Hongxin, Lu Weijie, Liu Dongning, Li Taiyuan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ju HouqiongDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Wan ZiwenLaboratory of Digestive Surgery, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Zhong ChonghanDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
He PenghuiDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Yu HongxinDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Lu WeijieDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Liu DongningDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Li TaiyuanDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Nanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

colorectal cancernatural orifice specimen extractionquality of liferobotic surgerysurvival

Identifiers

PMID36874472
PMCPMC9978825
OpenAlexW4321087790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.