Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38234452›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2023

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.

Zhizhong Zheng, Fenfen Kang, Yugang Yang, Yicong Fang, Kaiyuan Yao, Qunzhang Zeng, Muhai Fu, Lixiong Luo, Xiajuan Xue, Shuijie Lin and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhizhong Zheng *Department of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Fenfen Kang *Department of Anesthesiology, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Yugang Yang *Department of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Yicong FangDepartment of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Kaiyuan YaoDepartment of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Qunzhang ZengDepartment of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Muhai FuDepartment of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Lixiong LuoDepartment of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Xiajuan XueDepartment of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Shuijie LinDepartment of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Xingpeng ShiDepartment of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Xun FangDepartment of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Baohua ZhouDepartment of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Yincong GuoDepartment of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Zhangzhou Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Zhangzhou, China.
Fujian Medical University · CNZhangzhou Municipal Hospital of Fujian Province · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The cosmetic benefits of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) are easily noticeable, but its principles of aseptic and tumor-free procedure have caused controversy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted transanal NOSE or conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for sigmoid and rectal cancer at our hospital between January 2018 and December 2018. The study aimed to compare the general characteristics, perioperative indicators, postoperative complications, and five-year follow-up results between the two groups. Results: A total of 121 eligible patients were enrolled, with 52 underwent laparoscopic-assisted transanal NOSE and 69 underwent CLS. There were no significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of gender, age, body mass index (BMI), TNM stage, etc. ( Conclusions: The management of surgical complications in CLS is exemplary, with NOSE presenting a sole advantage in terms of incision length albeit at the cost of prolonged operative time. Therefore, NOSE may be deemed appropriate for patients who place high emphasis on postoperative cosmetic outcomes.

Indexed as

colorectal surgeryintraabdominal infectionslaparoscopysigmoidsurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID38234452
PMCPMC10791885
OpenAlexW4390541774

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.