ArticleFrontiers in surgery2023
Evaluating short-term and survival outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: A single-centre retrospective study.
Article 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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been confirmed as an alternative approach without auxiliary incisions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the short-term and survival outcomes of NOSES versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) in treatment of sigmoid and high rectal cancer. Method: The retrospective study was conducted at single centers between January 2017 to December 2021. Relevant data included clinical demographics, pathological features, operative parameters, postoperative complications and survival outcomes were collected and analyzed. All procedures were performed using either a NOSES or a conventional LAP approach. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance clinical and pathological features between the two groups. Results: After PSM, a total of 288 patients were eventually included in this study, 144 in each group. Patients in the NOSES group experienced faster recovery of gastrointestinal function (2.6 ± 0.8 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9 day, Conclusion: The transrectal NOSES procedure is a well-established strategy with advantages in reducing postoperative pain, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and less incision-related complications. In addition, the long-term survival is similar between NOSES and conventional laparoscopic surgery.
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.