ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2023
Short-term clinical effects and inflammatory response of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for the treatment of sigmoid and rectal cancer.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of delayed versus immediate coloanal anastomosis in patients with low rectal cancer: a recent meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical efficacy analysis of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Upregulated lncRNA LINC01128 in colorectal cancer accelerates cell growth and predicts malignant prognosis through sponging miR-363-3p.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 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
- Short-term clinical outcomes and five-year survival analysis of laparoscopic-assisted transanal natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid and rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The clinical outcomes and benefits of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) in colorectal cancer have not been fully evaluated comparing to conventional laparoscopic-assisted radical resection. This retrospective study was conducted to investigate the short-term clinical benefits of NOSES versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for the treatment of sigmoid and rectal cancer. Methods: A total of 112 patients with sigmoid or rectal cancer were included in this retrospective study. The observation group (n=60) was treated with NOSES, and the control group (n=52) was treated with conventional laparoscopic-assisted radical resection. Following these interventions, the postoperative recovery and inflammatory response indexes were compared between the two groups. Results: In contrast with the control group, the observation group significantly had longer operation time (t=2.83, P=0.006), but shorter durations for the resumption of a semi-liquid diet (t=2.17, P=0.032), and length of postoperative hospital stay (t=2.74, P=0.007), as well as fewer postoperative incision infections (χ Conclusions: NOSES can improve the postoperative recovery and has benefits in reducing the inflammatory response than conventional laparoscopic-assisted 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.