ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2025
Clinical efficacy analysis of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective analysis.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of rectal cancer, assessing the advantages and disadvantages of both surgical approaches.
methodsA propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to analyze 221 patients with rectal cancer treated at Qilu Hospital of Shandong University Dezhou Hospital (Dezhou People's Hospital) from January 2022 to January 2025. The NOSES group included 24 cases, while the CLS group included 197 cases. After 1:1 matching, 46 cases (23 in each group) were included. This study compared surgical time, blood loss, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein (CRP), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, time to passage of flatus, postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization costs, complications, and additional analgesia requirements between the two groups.
resultsThe NOSES group showed significant advantages in time to passage of flatus (1.78 ± 0.60 d versus 3.57 ± 1.08 d, P < 0.001), time to get out of bed (1.13 ± 0.34 d versus 1.70 ± 0.47 d, P < 0.001), and VAS scores on postoperative days 1 (1.70 ± 0.56 versus 3.30 ± 1.26, P < 0.001), 3 (1.48 ± 0.51 versus 2.91 ± 1.24, P < 0.001), and 7 (1.13 ± 0.55 versus 2.30 ± 1.36, P < 0.001) compared with the CLS group. The NOSES group also required no additional analgesia (χ
conclusionsNOSES effectively alleviates postoperative pain, demonstrates significant minimally invasive advantages, and facilitates short-term patient recovery, highlighting its clinical value.
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.