ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2024
Advancing mid-rectal cancer surgery: Unveiling the potential of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in comparison to conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of robotic-assisted NOSE versus traditional TWSR in colorectal cancer surgery: postoperative outcomes and efficacy.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Advancing mid-rectal cancer surgery: Unveiling the potential of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in comparison to conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMid-rectal cancer treatment traditionally involves conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection (CLAR). This study aimed to assess the clinical and therapeutic advantages of Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) over CLAR.
aimsTo compare the clinical outcomes, intraoperative metrics, postoperative recovery, complications, and long-term prognosis between NOSES and CLAR groups. MATERIALS &
methodsA total of 136 patients were analyzed, with 92 undergoing CLAR and 44 undergoing NOSES. Clinical outcomes were evaluated, and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to control potential biases.
resultsThe NOSES group exhibited significant improvements in postoperative recovery, including lower pain scores on days 1, 3, and 5 (p < .001), reduced need for additional analgesics (p = .02), shorter hospital stays (10.8 ± 2.3 vs. 14.2 ± 5.3 days; p < .001), and decreased intraoperative blood loss (48.1 ± 52.7 mL vs. 71.0 ± 55.0 mL; p = .03). Patients undergoing NOSES also reported enhanced satisfaction with postoperative abdominal appearance and better quality of life. Additionally, the NOSES approach resulted in fewer postoperative complications.
conclusionWhile long-term outcomes (overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates) were comparable between the two methods, NOSES demonstrated superior postoperative outcomes compared to CLAR in mid-rectal cancer treatment, while maintaining similar long-term oncological safety. These findings suggest that NOSES could serve as an effective alternative to CLAR without compromising long-term results.
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.