ReviewCureus2025
Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction for Right-Sided Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Propensity Score-Matched Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- First worldwide comparison of right hemicolectomy for colon cancer using vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (VNOTES) versus transvaginal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (TVNOSE).Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus totally laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer: a single-centre propensity score-matched study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery is the standard approach for right-sided colon cancer, but conventional laparoscopic specimen extraction (CVT) requires additional abdominal incisions, increasing the risk of postoperative complications and delayed recovery. Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) minimizes abdominal incisions, potentially improving patient outcomes. This meta-analysis compares NOSE and CVT in terms of postoperative complications, operative characteristics, and long-term outcomes. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Web of Science for studies available up to December 2024. A random-effects model was applied to compute ORs and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic. All statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.4.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Seven propensity score-matched studies with 566 patients were included, with 240 (42.4%) undergoing NOSE and 326 (57.6%) undergoing CVT. NOSE was associated with significantly reduced postoperative pain on the 3rd day (MD -1.1; 95% CI -1.7 to -0.5; p < 0.01), lower SSI rates (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.08-0.73; p = 0.012), and a shorter time to pass flatus (MD -0.8; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.4; p < 0.01). However, NOSE was linked to longer operative times (MD 36.4 minutes; 95% CI 3.4-69.4; p = 0.03). No significant differences were found in hospital stay (MD -0.5 days; 95% CI -2.1 to 1.1; p = 0.57), blood loss (MD -2.1; 95% CI -9.6 to 5.4; p = 0.58), or local recurrence (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.07-3.01; p = 0.405). In conclusion, NOSE offers advantages such as reduced postoperative pain, lower SSI rates, and faster bowel recovery, with prolonged operative time as its main limitation. These findings support NOSE as a viable alternative to CVT for right-sided colon cancer without compromising safety or long-term outcomes.
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.