SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Transvaginal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatural Orifice Specimen Extraction (NOSE) surgery uses the body's natural orifices as channels for removing surgical specimens. This approach obviates the requirement for an extra incision on the abdominal wall, which in turn further enhances the minimally invasive outcome of the surgical procedure. The vagina, which functions as a natural orifice, is widely used to extract specimens that have been surgically resected in the context of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. This study aims to compare postoperative complications, oncological safety, pathological results, and short-term efficacy between transvaginal and transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
methodsThis research adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. Literature retrieval was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. Clinical data of postoperative complications, pathological results (proximal margin, distal margin, number of lymph nodes), oncological outcomes (DFS and OS), and short-term outcomes (hospital stay, pain score, additional analgesics, flatus time, time to first diet) were collected. Pooled estimates were derived using fixed- and random-effect models.
resultsUltimately, 10 studies with a total of 823 patients were incorporated into the analysis. Compared with the LAP group, the TVSE group tended to have a lower incidence of postoperative complications (OR = 0.45, 95% CI:0.30 ~ 0.67). The pathological findings observed in the TVSE group appear comparable to those in the LAP group, with no apparent discrepancy in the number of retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 0.54, 95% CI: -0.27 ~ 1.34). No obvious differences were found in disease-free survival (HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.72-2.08) and overall survival (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.43-1.37). Compared with the LAP group, the TVSE group may show potential favourable trends in short-term outcomes.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that the TVSE group may be associated with lower postoperative morbidity and more favorable recovery outcomes than the LAP group. No obvious unfavorable impact on oncological safety was seen in the TVSE group. Due to the observational design of the included studies, relevant conclusions remain inconclusive. More high-quality studies are required to validate these results.
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.