ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for early-stage rectal cancer: a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis (in China).
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. 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.
- Multi-database bibliometric analysis and cross-database comparison of NOSES research in colorectal cancer: integrated evidence from WoSCC and PubMed.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- A randomized controlled trial comparing robotic NOSES versus robotic TME for Mid-rectal cancer: short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Trial
- [Clinical Study of Robotic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery for Right Colon Cancer].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026Article
- Application of double purse-string anastomosis in optimizing laparoscopic NOSES surgery for rectal cancer under the payment system of DRGs.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Sleep Disorders and Perioperative Stroke: A Global Bibliometric Analysis from 1999 to 2024.Nature and science of sleep · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the global increase in the adoption of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (R-NOSES), its advantages over robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery (R-TSES) for treating early-stage rectal cancer remain debated. There is scant nationwide, multicenter studies comparing the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES for this condition.
objectiveThis retrospective cohort study was conducted nationally across multiple centers to compare the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES in early-stage rectal cancer.
designMulticenter retrospective cohort trial.
settingEight experienced surgeons from 8 high-volume Chinese colorectal cancer treatment centers. PATIENTS: The study included 1086 patients who underwent R-NOSES or R-TSES from October 2015 to November 2023 at the 8 centers. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma; (2) robotic total mesorectal excision; (3) postoperative pathological staging of TisN0M0 or T1-2N0M0; (4) availability of complete surgical and postoperative follow-up data. Patients were matched 1:1 in the R-NOSES and R-TSES groups using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique.
resultsAfter PSM, 318 matched pairs with well-balanced patient characteristics were identified. The operation time for the R-NOSES group was significantly longer than that for the R-TSES group [140 min (125-170 min) vs. 140 min (120-160 min), P = 0.032]. Conversely, the times to first flatus and initial oral intake in the R-NOSES group were significantly shorter than those in the R-TSES group [48 h (41-56 h) vs. 48 h (44-62 h), P = 0.049 and 77 h (72-94 h) vs. 82 h (72-96 h), P = 0.008], respectively. Additionally, the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the R-NOSES group compared with the R-TSES group [7 day (7-9 day) vs. 8 day (7-9 day), P = 0.005]. The overall postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (10.7% in the R-NOSES group vs. 11.9% in the R-TSES group, P = 0.617). However, the R-NOSES group had a lower incidence of wound complications compared to the R-TSES group (0.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.015). Regarding surgical stress response, the R-NOSES group showed superior outcomes. Additionally, patients in the R-NOSES group required fewer additional analgesics on postoperative days 1, 3, and 5 and reported lower pain scores compared to the R-TSES group. The body image scale (BIS) and cosmetic scale (CS) scores were also significantly higher in the R-NOSES group. Furthermore, the R-NOSES group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in functional dimensions such as physical, role, emotional, social, and cognitive functioning, and in symptoms like fatigue and pain, when compared to the R-TSES group. LIMITATIONS: It is imperative to ensure the safe and standardized implementation of R-NOSES through the establishment of a uniform training protocol.
conclusionsThese results affirm that R-NOSES is a safe and effective treatment for early-stage rectal cancer when meticulously executed by skilled surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38914889What 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.