SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Comparative analysis of safety and effectiveness between natural orifice specimen extraction and conventional transabdominal specimen extraction in robot-assisted colorectal cancer resection through systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Laparoscopic Resection Rectopexy with Transanal Specimen Extraction for Complete Rectal Prolapse: Retrospective Cohort Study of Functional Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic results of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) compared to conventional transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to find research articles published from the beginning of the databases to July 2024 that focus on patients who have undergone robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. Specifically, this review will compare NOSE with conventional TASE. Only studies published in English will be considered. Literature screening will adhere closely to predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The evaluation of quality will involve the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis of the included studies' data will be performed using Review Manager 5.4.1. In the final analysis, 9 retrospective cohort studies comprising 1571 patients were included. Out of these, 732 patients opted for NOSE, while 839 patients chose conventional TASE in robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who received TASE experienced enhancements in hospital stay duration, time until first gas passage, wound infection rates, and time until the first intake of a liquid diet. Nevertheless, there were no notable distinctions noted between the two methods regarding surgery duration, projected blood loss, intestinal blockage, or frequency of anastomotic leakage. In patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery, the safety and feasibility of NOSE are demonstrated. Compared to traditional TASE, it provides clear benefits including shorter hospital stays, earlier first flatus, quicker initiation of a liquid diet, and lower risk of wound infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39361096What 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.