ArticleBMC surgery2026
Application of double purse-string anastomosis in optimizing laparoscopic NOSES surgery for rectal cancer under the payment system of DRGs.
Article in BMC 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNatural transluminal specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is used to treat rectal cancer (RC). However, under the payment system of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), the application of double purse-string anastomosis (DPSA) in RC laparoscopic NOSES is unclear.
objectivesThis work compared the clinical efficacy and prognosis between DPSA and single purse-string anastomosis (SPSA) in RC laparoscopic NOSES.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 36 patients with RC laparoscopic radical resection at Zhejiang Jinhua Guangfu Tumor Hospital was conducted. Patients were clustered into the DPSA group (15 cases) and the SPSA group (21 cases) and were evaluated in terms of baseline characteristics, perioperative indicators, surgical complications, postoperative recovery, hospitalization costs, and prognosis.
resultsA significant difference was observed in gender between the two groups (P = 0.028). In terms of perioperative indicators, compared with the SPSA group, the anastomosis and reconstruction time in the DPSA group significantly increased (55.20 min vs. 39.52 min, P = 0.006), with a significant decrease in the intraoperative bleeding volume (30 mL vs. 100 mL, P = 0.006) and the lymph node harvest (13.14 vs. 18.57, P = 0.049). We detected no significant difference in surgical complications or postoperative recovery between the two groups (P > 0.05). Compared with the SPSA group, the total hospital days (18.40 days vs. 20.67 days) and hospitalization costs (CNY 43,127.26 vs. CNY 46,855.49) in the DPSA group dropped by 10.98% and 7.96%, respectively. The cost index of DRGs in the DPSA group was significantly lower than that in the SPSA group (88.20% vs. 95.82%). Follow-up results revealed no significant differences in the recurrence rates (6.7% vs. 0%) in both groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionUnder the payment system of DRGs, the DPSA method for laparoscopic NOSES for RC is safe and feasible, which can reduce patients’ financial burden, facilitate the redistribution of medical resources, and save national medical insurance funds.
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.