ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2024
Efficacy of natural duct specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a single-centre retrospective analysis.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRectal cancer has a high incidence and its onset age is getting younger. Currently, conventional laparoscopic surgery can no longer meet the clinical requirements for surgical incisions. Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is less invasive, but there have been few studies on the effectiveness of this procedure for rectal cancer. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the efficacy of NOSES and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer treatment.
methodsIn this retrospective analysis, we collected clinical data of 150 rectal cancer patients. Patients who received NOSES were included in a NOSES group and those underwent routine laparoscopic surgery were in a control group. Then, the observation group was matched with the control group at a ratio of 1:1 by using the propensity score matching method. We compared the surgical indicators, postoperative recovery indicators, physical indicators, pain, surgical stress-related indicators, inflammation indicators, immune indicators, quality of life, and postoperative complications between the two groups.
resultsWe found that compared with the control group, the NOSES group had a shorter exhaust start time, getting out-of-bed activity time, length of hospital stay, bowel sound recovery time, and gastrointestinal peristalsis time. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) scores decreased in both groups after surgery, with the NOSES group showing a more significant reduction. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores decreased in both groups, and the NOSES group had lower VAS scores. Additionally, the NOSES group exhibited a significant interaction effect with time (intergroup effect: F = 497.800; time effect: F = 163.100; interaction effect: F = 5.307). Superoxide dismutase (SOD) levels decreased and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels increased in both groups postoperatively; however, the NOSES group had higher SOD levels and lower MDA levels. All the above comparisons were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the total complication rates between the NOSES group and the control group (Z = -0.768,
conclusionCompared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, NOSES results in less pain and injury, a more stable mood, faster recovery, and comparable safety.
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.