ReviewAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2026
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes Following Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction for Colon Cancer.
Review in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) in colon cancer surgery raises concerns about intra-abdominal infection, peritoneal seeding, and local recurrence due to possible tumor cell implantation. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares complete intracorporeal resection with NOSE versus conventional laparoscopic colon resection, focusing on short-term outcomes and long-term oncological safety. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for English-language human studies published until April 2025. Meta-analyses were performed. They evaluated postoperative outcomes that included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, overall morbidity, severe morbidity, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay. Oncological outcomes included local and overall recurrence rates. Results: A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 3 randomized controlled trials and 12 retrospective studies, involving 1683 patients, 733 in the NOSE group and 950 in the conventional group. Pooled analyses demonstrated significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, lower overall postoperative morbidity, and shorter time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay in the NOSE group. However, operative time was significantly longer in the NOSE group. The average of median follow-up periods across studies was 38.9 months, and no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of oncological outcomes. Conclusions: This study supports NOSE as a practical and effective surgical approach in selected patients with colon cancer. It offers significant benefits, including fewer postoperative complications and faster patient recovery, while maintaining oncological outcomes comparable to conventional techniques. NOSE should be considered in clinical practice, tailored to patient preferences and individual clinical factors.
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.