ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Efficacy comparison of optimal natural orifice specimen extraction for robotic middle rectal cancer resection in women: transanal or transvaginal orifice.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2025. 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
- Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: history and current development.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to determine the optimal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) method for robotic-assisted mid-rectal cancer resection in women.
methodsThis retrospective propensity score-matched (PSM) study was to analyze the clinical data prospectively collected from female rectal cancer patients who underwent either robotic-assisted transvaginal specimen extraction (RATV) or robotic-assisted transanal specimen extraction (RATA) at our center between June 2016 and December 2022. The main outcome measures were urinary, anal, and sexual function. Disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were also included .
resultsAnal function, assessed by the Wexner score, was better in the RATV group than in the RATA group (P = 0.034). Additionally, pre-menopausal women in RATV group exhibited superior anal function over those in RATA group (P = 0.031). There was no statistically significant difference in urinary function between the groups for both pre-menopausal and peri-menopausal patients (P = 0.711, P = 0.106). No difference was observed in sexual function between the two groups (P = 0.351); however, pre-menopausal patients in RATA group had better sexual function than those in RATV group (P = 0.045). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed surgical procedure was not a significant factor for the occurrence of sexual dysfunction. There were no significant difference in DFS (P = 0.845)and OS (P = 0.642) between the two groups.
conclusionThough the postoperative efficacy of the RATA and RATV was equivalent on urinary and sexual function, RATV is an optimal natural orifice specimen extraction for robotic middle rectal cancer resection in women based on anal function.
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.