ArticleMedicine2026
Comparative outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional minilaparotomy-assisted specimen extraction in colorectal cancer: A single-center retrospective study.
Article in Medicine, 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
Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has emerged as an advanced minimally invasive technique that eliminates abdominal wall incisions for specimen retrieval; nevertheless, comparative data on its efficacy relative to conventional minilaparotomy-assisted extraction in colorectal cancer (CRC) remain limited. This retrospective analysis was conducted on 126 patients who underwent laparoscopic CRC resection at our institution, allocated to either the NOSES group (transanal specimen extraction, n = 49) or the conventional group (minilaparotomy-assisted extraction, n = 77), comparing perioperative parameters, postoperative recovery indicators, complication rates, and pathological outcomes. The NOSES group demonstrated significantly shorter time to first flatus (2.3 ± 0.9 vs 2.9 ± 1.1 days, P = .002), time to first liquid diet (3.1 ± 1.0 vs 3.8 ± 1.3 days, P = .001), and postoperative hospital stay (8.4 ± 3.2 vs 10.1 ± 4.1 days, P = .014). Visual analog scale pain scores on postoperative day 1 were significantly lower in the NOSES group (3.2 ± 1.1 vs 4.5 ± 1.3, P < .001), with reduced additional analgesic requirements (22.4% vs 44.2%, P = .014). Overall complication rates were significantly lower in the NOSES group (12.2% vs 24.7%, P = .043), with wound infections occurring exclusively in the conventional group (0% vs 6.5%, P = .045). No significant differences were observed in operative time, estimated blood loss, anastomotic leakage, lymph node yield, or R0 resection rate (all P > .05). In conclusion, NOSES appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to conventional minilaparotomy-assisted specimen extraction in highly selected patients with CRC, offering advantages in postoperative pain control, gastrointestinal function recovery, and wound-related complication reduction without compromising oncological integrity.
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.