ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2026
Conventional laparoscopic segmental bowel resection with mini-laparotomy specimen extraction compared with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction (NOSE) procedures in patients with colorectal endometriosis.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor: "Conventional laparoscopic segmental bowel resection with mini-laparotomy specimen extraction compared with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction (NOSE) procedures in patients with colorectal endometriosis".Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2026Article
- Following the NOSE: when surgical evolution outpaces the evidence.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In patients with colorectal endometriosis the optimal surgical approach for excising disease remains unknown. Objectives: To compare the safety and efficacy of classic colorectal resection with mini-laparotomy and extracorporeal specimen removal and anastomosis formation (CLS) and colorectal resection with natural orifice specimen (bowel segment) extraction (NOSE), which is performed entirely in the abdominal cavity. Methods: This is a single centre, retrospective observational study of 161 cases of colorectal endometriosis. Women underwent laparoscopic excision of deep endometriosis with segmental bowel resection between 2015 and 2023. Main Outcome Measures: Hospital stay, complication rate, infectious issues, pain measured on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) and quality of life [derived from Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom (KESS)] questionnaire were the outcomes of interest. Results: No differences in post-operative pain or bowel quality of life at 3 months were observed between CLS and NOSE surgical treatment of colorectal endometriosis (mean VAS score 2 vs. 1, ( Conclusions: NOSE and CLS procedures appear comparable in safety and efficacy for removing colorectal endometriosis. Randomised trials are needed to compare these techniques. What is New?: The NOSE technique for removing colorectal endometriosis is not associated with poorer safety, inflammatory, infective or efficacy outcomes compared to the classical CLS approach. Randomised controlled trials are needed to compare these techniques.
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.