
==== Front
World J Surg Oncol
World J Surg Oncol
World Journal of Surgical Oncology
1477-7819
BioMed Central London

3513
10.1186/s12957-024-03513-3
Research
Short-term outcomes of Transrectal Natural Orifice Specimen extraction compared with conventional minimally invasive surgery for selected patients with colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis and literature review
Chan Li-Yang
Chern Yih-Jong
Hsu Yu-Jen
Jong Bor-Kang
Lai I-Li
Hsieh Pao-Shiu
Liao Chun-Kai
You Jeng-Fu jenodyssey@gmail.com

grid.145695.a 0000 0004 1798 0922 Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, College of Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
6 9 2024
6 9 2024
2024
22 2372 6 2024
27 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Purpose

Conventional minimally invasive surgery requires mini-laparotomy to extract the pathological specimen. However, by using a natural orifice as the delivery route, natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery avoids the need for a large incision. This study analyzed the short-term outcome of NOSE compared with conventional mini-laparotomy (CL) for colorectal cancer surgery.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1,189 patients who underwent surgery for primary colorectal cancer between the cecum and upper rectum. Propensity score analyses were applied to the NOSE and CL groups in a 1:1 matched cohort.

Results

After propensity score matching, each group included 201 patients. The NOSE group and CL group did not differ significantly in terms of baseline characteristics. Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were comparable. Compared with the CL group, the NOSE group experienced a shorter time to first flatus (1.6 ± 0.8 vs. 2.0 ± 1.2 days, p < 0.001), first stool (2.7 ± 1.5 vs. 4.1 ± 1.9, p < 0.001), liquid diet (2.3 ± 1.3 vs. 3.6 ± 1.8 days, p < 0.001), soft diet (3.9 ± 2.0 vs. 5.2 ± 1.9 days, p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (5.1 ± 3.5 vs. 7.4 ± 4.8 days, p < 0.001). The NOSE group exhibited lower mean pain intensity and lower highest pain intensity on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3.

Conclusion

NOSE has several advantages over conventional mini-laparotomy following minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer. These advantages include reduced time to oral intake, shorter hospital stays, and less postoperative pain. NOSE can be adopted and applied to highly selective patients without additional risk of short-term complications.

issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Colorectal cancer is currently one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers in the world [1]. Minimally invasive surgical approaches for treating colorectal cancer have become increasingly common as more data have demonstrated the safety, feasibility, and oncologic equivalency of such procedures compared with open surgery [2–5]. However, in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, a mini-laparotomy is still necessary to extract pathological specimens. Thus, morbidities associated with larger abdominal incisions, such as wound pain, incisional hernia, and poor cosmetic results, remain a risk. To advance traditional laparoscopy techniques, natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery was first introduced by Franklin in 1993 [6]. This new method improves on “conventional” laparoscopy surgery, which entails extraction of specimens through an additional abdominal wound [7], by avoiding the need for a mini-laparotomy and maximizing the advantages of total laparoscopy surgery. Studies have reported transvaginal and transrectal routes for specimen extraction, but these raise concerns regarding increased risk of bacterial contamination [8, 9]. Moreover, oncological safety must be evaluated because of the difficulty of delivering a sizable, bulky specimen through NOSE, resulting in reduced specimen quality.

Several studies have reported NOSE offers promising early postoperative outcomes, including reduced postoperative pain, faster bowel recovery time, and a shorter hospital stay compared to conventional mini-laparotomy (CL) surgery [10–16]. Meta-analyses have demonstrated that NOSE provides oncological outcomes that are non-inferior to those achieved with conventional mini-laparotomy surgery, indicating that NOSE is equally effective in terms of cancer control and patient survival. [14, 17] This finding supports the promising application of NOSE as a viable surgical option. However, these studies predominantly involved sigmoid and rectal lesions. Research focusing on mid and low rectal cancer has added heterogeneity of the results due to different techniques and tumor characteristics in these low-lying tumors [16, 18, 19]. Additionally, studies regarding tumors located in the ascending colon and near the splenic flexure are limited [8, 13, 20–26]. An earlier consensus suggests that NOSE is suitable for non-locally advanced cancer, with patient BMI between 30 and 35 kg/m², and tumor size less than 5 cm. [27] Furthermore, factors such as anal stenosis, anal dysfunction, and nulliparity need to be considered when evaluating the suitability for NOSE.

NOSE has been increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery, with various techniques being explored to optimize clinical outcomes. Initially, the transvaginal route was primarily utilized for specimen extraction, particularly following right hemicolectomy, which limited the application of NOSE to female patients. [8, 20] However, recent advancements have broadened the applicability of NOSE, making it accessible to a wider patient population. [7] We conducted a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to compare the short-term outcomes of transrectal NOSE with CL in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer. This study incorporates a literature review and examines the use of different NOSE techniques, with a particular focus on right-sided and left-sided colorectal tumors, and evaluates the outcomes associated with these varied approaches.

Materials and methods

Patient selection and matched variables

We retrieved detailed information on clinicopathological variables from the Colorectal Section Tumor Registry of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. The institutional review board approved this study (IRB No.202200141B0). All patients who received minimally invasive surgery for primary colorectal cancer, including between the cecum and upper rectum, between January 2015 and December 2019 were recruited for this study. Figure 1 presents the study flowchart as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 1,189 patients, with 985 in the CL group and 204 in the NOSE group, were enrolled for further evaluation. To reduce the possibility of bias or imbalance arising from the apparent difference in sample sizes and outcomes between the CL and NOSE groups, propensity score matching was used to equate the two groups. A caliper width of 0.045 was employed to ensure precise matching. The matching covariates were age, sex, BMI (categorized as greater than or less than 24), tumor stage, and operation method (categorized as right hemicolectomy, left hemicolectomy, and anterior resection). A 1:1 matching ratio was employed to maintain a balanced comparison between the two groups.

Fig. 1 Flowchart of the study design. This flowchart illustrates the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study, along with the final number of patients in the NOSE and CL groups

Surgical procedures

Right hemicolectomy and left hemicolectomy

For tumors located in the ascending colon, hepatic flexure, and proximal transverse colon, right hemicolectomy was performed with D2 lymph node dissection using techniques detailed in a previous study [21]. For tumors located in the distal transverse colon, splenic flexure, or proximal descending colon, standard left hemicolectomy was performed using techniques described previously [23, 28]. For NOSE, a transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) scope (Richard Wolf, Tubingen, Germany) was inserted through the anus and then gently pushed until it reached the upper rectum. An incision was made at the upper rectum, and a suction device was used to clean any fecal spillage. The TEM scope was forwarded beyond the rectal incision, and then the specimen was pulled out through the TEM scope. The rectal incision was closed using a barbed suture (Fig. 2).

Anterior resection

For tumors located in the distal descending colon, sigmoid colon, and upper rectum, anterior resection was performed. The rectum was transected by a linear stapler. In the NOSE group, the rectal stump was opened. A TEM scope was introduced through the anus as a working channel to deliver the anvil and specimen. Anvil fixation was performed by purse-string suture. Linear staples were then used to seal the rectal stump, and colorectal anastomosis was performed using a circular stapler (Fig. 2). All patients under went curative surgery with radical resection in accordance with the principle of total mesocolic excision.

Fig. 2 Critical steps of NOSE

Clinical outcomes

Measurement outcomes included short-term postoperative complications, recovery, readmission, and pain intensity. Postoperative complications were defined as morbidity occurring within 30 days and wound-related complications (wound infection or wound dehiscence); pulmonary (atelectasis or pneumonia), urinary (urinary tract infection or neurogenic bladder), cardiovascular (myocardial infarction, stroke, or embolism), ileus, or intra-abdominal (abscess or hemorrhage) complications; chylous ascites; anastomosis leakage; and other rare complications. Anastomosis leakage was defined as the clinical or radiological detection of a defect of the intestinal wall at the anastomotic site. Dehiscence of the rectal incision in patients who underwent NOSE after right or left hemicolectomy was classified as an intra-abdominal complication. The severity of morbidity was rated using the Clavien–Dindo classification [29].

Postoperative mortality was defined as death occurring within 30 days of surgery. The postoperative recovery evaluation was based on blood test reports, time to first flatus and stool, time to oral intake, pain intensity, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Postoperative 30-day hospital readmission data were also collected. For the postoperative pain assessment, pain intensity was assessed using a numeric rating scale with scores from 0 to 10 (10 representing the worst pain). The mean and highest pain scores on each day for three consecutive days postoperatively were used for further evaluation. Both groups received the same pain management strategies. Parenteral analgesics were initially administered in the postoperative period and switched to enteral ones once the patient could tolerate a liquid diet. Parenteral analgesics could be administered to patients in case of acute severe pain. Enteral and parenteral administration of analgesia were also collected for further analysis.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were conducted using SPSS software, version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Clinicopathological characteristics with categorical variables are presented as frequencies and proportions and were compared using the Chi-square test. Continuous variables are expressed as means with standard deviations and were analyzed using Student’s t-test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The love plot for propensity score matching was created using R (version 4.4.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and RStudio (version 2024.04.2; RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA, USA).

Results

After exclusion, we included 985 patients who had received CL surgery and 204 patients who had undergone NOSE. After PSM, we enrolled 402 in total, 201 in each group, to perform the final analysis. The demographic data before and after matching are presented in Table 1. Before matching, the NOSE group was younger, had more T1 lesions, was diagnosed with an earlier TNM stage, and had predominantly received anterior resections. After matching, confounding factors exhibited no significant difference between the groups. Figure 3 displays the love plot, which demonstrates the patient characteristics before and after propensity score matching. The standardized mean difference being near zero indicates that a good balance was achieved post-matching.

Table 1 Demographic data of before matching and after matching cohorts

	Before matching	After matching	
NOSE	CL	p-value	NOSE	CL	p-value	
(n = 204)	(n = 985)		(n = 201)	(n = 201)		
Age (year)	62.1 ± 12.5	64.5 ± 12.2	0.011	62.4 ± 12.4	63.6 ± 11.9	0.319	
Sex			0.29			0.762	
 Male	117 (57.4)	525 (53.3)		115 (57.2)	118 (58.7)		
 Female	87 (42.6)	460 (46.7)		96 (42.8)	83 (41.3)		
BMI (kg/m2)			0.286			0.134	
 < 24	103 (50.5)	457 (46.4)		101 (50.2)	86 (42.8)		
 ≥ 24	101 (49.5)	528 (53.6)		100 (49.8)	115 (57.2)		
Albumin (g/dL)			0.095			0.503	
 < 3.5	3 (1.5)	39 (4.0)		3 (1.5)	6 (3.0)		
 ≥ 3.5	201 (98.5)	943 (96.0)		198 (98.5)	195 (97.0)		
Hemoglobin (g/dL)			0.076			0.563	
 < 10	16 (7.8)	120 (12.2)		16 (8.0)	13 (6.5)		
 ≥ 10	188 (92.2)	865 (87.8)		185 (92.0)	188 (93.5)		
ASA Score			0.671			0.293	
 1	1 (0.5)	1 (0.1)		1 (0.5)	0 (0.0)		
 2	70 (34.3)	339 (34.5)		67 (33.3)	80 (40.0)		
 3	132 (64.7)	640 (65.0)		132 (65.7)	120 (60.0)		
 4	1 (0.5)	4 (0.4)		1 (0.5)	0 (0.0)		
Operative method			< 0.001			0.308	
 Right hemicolectomy	40 (19.6)	336 (34.1)		40 (19.9)	40 (19.9)		
 Left hemicolectomy	19 (9.3)	108 (11.0)		19 (9.5)	11 (5.5)		
 Anterior resection	145 (71.1)	541 (54.9)		142 (70.6)	150 (74.6)		
Tumor Stage (TNM)			0.017			0.943	
 I	88 (43.1)	321 (32.6)		85 (42.3)	87 (43.3)		
 II	43 (21.1)	239 (24.3)		43 (21.4)	45 (22.4)		
 III	65 (31.9)	350 (35.5)		65 (32.3)	63 (31.3)		
 IV	8 (3.9)	75 (7.6)		8 (4.0)	6 (3.0)		
T stage			0.001			0.650	
 T1	69(33.8)	213(21.6)		67(33.3)	59(29.4)		
 T2	34(16.7)	170(17.3)		33(16.4)	42(20.9)		
 T3	84(41.2)	466(47.3)		84(41.8)	82(40.8)		
 T4	17(8.3)	136(13.8)		17(8.5)	18(9)		

Fig. 3 Love plot illustrating patient characteristics before and after propensity score matching

Postoperative outcomes

The intraoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes are summarized in Table 2. The NOSE group experienced a shorter operative time (203.1 ± 57.3 vs. 216.6 ± 56.1 min, p = 0.018) and lower estimated blood loss (33.2 ± 22.3 vs. 43.9 ± 33.3 ml, p < 0.001) than the CL group. A robotic-assisted procedure was performed on nine patients in the NOSE group and two in the CL group. No patients in the two study groups received an elective diverting stoma. The quality of surgical specimens, including the specimen length, the number of lymph nodes retrieved, the percentage of cases with fewer than 12 lymph nodes retrieved, the number of positive lymph nodes examined, and the resection margin, were similar in both groups. The NOSE group exhibited a statistically significantly smaller tumor size (2.44 ± 1.12 vs. 2.67 ± 1.14).

Table 2 Intraoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes

	NOSE	CL	p-value	
(n = 201)	(n = 201)	
Operative time (min)	203.1 ± 57.3	216.6 ± 56.1	0.018	
Estimated blood loss (ml)	33.2 ± 22.3	43.9 ± 33.3	< 0.001	
Intracorporeal anastomosis	201 (100%)	9 (4.5%)	< 0.001	
Robotic-assisted	9 (4.5%)	2 (1.0%)	0.026	
Tumor size (cm)	2.44 ± 1.12	2.67 ± 1.14	0.040	
Specimen length (cm)	15.7 ± 6.1	16.0 ± 5.9	0.584	
Lymph node retrieved (n)	28.2 ± 14.0	29.7 ± 13.8	0.272	
Less than 12 lymph nodes retrieved (n)	6 (3.0%)	6 (3.0%)	1.000	
Positive lymph node (n)	1.0 ± 2.5	1.7 ± 5.6	0.137	
Resection margin (cm)	4.7 ± 2.9	4.6 ± 2.5	0.780	
First flatus passage (day)	1.6 ± 0.8	2.0 ± 1.2	< 0.001	
First stool passage (day)	2.7 ± 1.5	4.1 ± 1.9	< 0.001	
Tolerate liquid diet (day)	2.3 ± 1.3	3.6 ± 1.8	< 0.001	
Tolerate soft diet (day)	3.9 ± 2.6	5.2 ± 1.9	< 0.001	
Postoperative hospital stay (day)	5.1 ± 3.5	7.4 ± 4.8	< 0.001	

Indicators of gastrointestinal recovery were statistically significant between the two groups. The NOSE group experienced a shorter mean time to first flatus (1.6 ± 0.8 vs. 2.0 ± 1.2 days, p < 0.001), first stool (2.7 ± 1.5 vs. 4.1 ± 1.9 days, p < 0.001), liquid diet (2.3 ± 1.3 vs. 3.6 ± 1.8 days, p < 0.001), and soft diet (3.9 ± 2.6 vs. 5.2 ± 1.9 days, p < 0.001). The postoperative hospitalization period was shorter in the NOSE group (5.1 ± 3.5 vs. 7.4 ± 4.8 days), which was statistically significant (p < 0.001).

Postoperative pain and analgesics

The mean pain intensity and highest pain intensity are presented in Fig. 4. The NOSE group had lower mean pain intensity on postoperative day (POD) 1 (2.67 ± 0.79 vs. 3.07 ± 0.77, p < 0.001), POD 2 (2.37 ± 0.71 vs. 2.53 ± 0.82, p = 0.037), and POD 3 (2.07 ± 0.75 vs. 2.44 ± 0.92, p = 0.045); the NOSE group also had lower highest pain intensity on POD 1 (3.29 ± 1.57 vs. 4.29 ± 1.82, p < 0.001), POD 2 (2.59 ± 1.15 vs. 3.06 ± 1.45, p < 0.001), and POD 3 (2.14 ± 0.87 vs. 2.50 ± 1.28, p = 0.001). The percentage of patients who received only enteral analgesics on POD 1–3 is presented in Fig. 5. A higher percentage of patients in the NOSE group received only enteral analgesics on POD 1 (71.6% vs. 40.3%, p < 0.001), POD 2 (89.6% vs. 72.1%, p < 0.001), and POD 3 (97.0% vs. 84.6%, p < 0.001). These patients tolerated postoperative pain without additional intravenous analgesics.

Fig. 4 Development of mean pain intensity (a) and highest pain intensity (b) on postoperative day. Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. NRS = numeric rating scale; POD = postoperative day

Fig. 5 Percentage of patients who received only enteral analgesics on postoperative day 1–3

Postoperative complications

The overall morbidity rate within 30 days of surgery was lower in the NOSE group with borderline significance (4.5% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.073), as presented in Table 3. No statistical differences were evident between the NOSE and CL groups with regard to intra-abdominal infection (2.0% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.372) or anastomotic leakage (1.0% vs. 0.5%, p = 1.000). The results for severity of morbidity were also not statistically significant. Mild complications (Clavien–Dindo grade I and II) occurred in 5 patients (2.5%) in the NOSE group and 14 (7.0%) in the CL group, and severe complications (Clavien–Dindo grade III and IV) occurred in 4 (2.0%) patients in the NOSE group and 4 (2.0%) in the CL group. Within 30 days of discharge, the overall readmission rate was 1.7%, exhibiting no statistical significance between the two groups (2% vs. 1.5%, p = 1.000).

Table 3 Postoperative morbidity and mortality

	NOSE	CL	p-value	
(n = 201)	(n = 201)	
Morbidity in 30 days	9 (4.5%)	18 (9.0%)	0.073	
 Wound	1 (0.5%)	5 (2.5%)	0.215	
 Pulmonary	0 (0.0%)	2 (1.0%)	0.499	
 Urinary	0 (0.0%)	1 (0.5%)	1.000	
 Ileus	1 (0.5%)	3 (1.5%)	0.623	
 Intra-abdominal infection	4 (2.0%)	1 (0.5%)	0.372	
 Anastomotic leakage	2 (1.0%)	1 (0.5%)	1.000	
 Chylous ascites	1 (0.5%)	3 (1.5%)	0.623	
 Other	0	2 (1.0%)	0.499	
Death	0	0	1.000	
Grade of morbidity			0.107	
 No morbidity	192 (95.5%)	183 (91.0%)		
 Clavien-Dindo I-II	5 (2.5%)	14 (7.0%)		
 Clavien-Dindo III-IV	4 (2.0%)	4 (2.0%)		
Readmission in 30 days	4 (2.0%)	3 (1.5%)	1.000	

Discussion

Our study collected consecutive five-year data from a tertiary referral hospital, concluding with a case-matched analysis comparing NOSE and CL surgery. Our results demonstrated that the NOSE technique was a feasible procedure associated with less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, and no differences in postoperative complications.

Previous studies have determined that postoperative pain is not adequately managed in a significant portion of patients [30]. This is associated with various adverse outcomes, including increased morbidity, the development of chronic postoperative pain, impaired function, delayed recovery from surgery, impaired quality of life, prolonged opioid use, and increased medical costs. Poor controlled acute postoperative pain has also been associated with poorer long-term physical functioning and global perceived recovery [31]. Therefore, we aimed to achieve improved management of or even reduced postoperative pain. In addition to younger age, female sex, level of preoperative pain, and type of surgery, incision size is an independent predictor of severe postoperative pain [32]. The NOSE procedure reduces the incision size by abandoning the 5–8-cm mini-laparotomy incision required in CL. Studies have acknowledged that patients who undergo NOSE have less postoperative pain [11, 13, 14, 21, 33–35]. In our study, NOSE exhibited superior results in mean pain intensity and highest pain intensity on POD 1–3. Moreover, a higher percentage of patients in the NOSE group needed solely enteral analgesics to control postoperative pain. Compared to the NOSE group, the CL group scored higher in pain intensity and required more parenteral analgesics. Our data demonstrated that NOSE leads to less postoperative pain, easier pain management, earlier recovery, and shorter hospital stays.

Concerns about NOSE include bacterial contamination during intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction. Some studies have obtained intraoperative peritoneal fluid as a measurable means of evaluation. Costantino et al. reported a higher contamination rate of peritoneal fluid during left-sided colorectal resection in the NOSE group [36]. However, another recent study revealed no difference in bacterial outcomes in the peritoneal lavage fluid, attributing this to using a sterile specimen bag to prevent contamination during resected specimen extraction [37]. Nevertheless, studies have described non-inferior results in infection rates regardless of bacterial contamination during NOSE [14, 21, 38]. Moreover, several studies and three meta-analyses have reported that the short-term postoperative complications related to NOSE were significantly less than those of CL [10, 11, 13]. This favorable result was not observed in our study. In our study, patients in the NOSE and CL groups had similar complication rates, but the complication rates in NOSE were identical to those of previous studies (4–15%). Two patients in the NOSE group developed anastomosis leakage and were treated using diverting colostomy and surgical drainage, respectively. Four patients who underwent NOSE developed an intra-abdominal infection. A CT scan was performed on three of these patients, revealing that the site of intra-abdominal infection was not located in the pelvis; this indicated that the condition did not originate from the specimen extraction site of the NOSE procedure.

Variation in techniques

Numerous studies have been conducted using various techniques on NOSE. We conducted a literature review on different NOSE techniques performed in colorectal cancer surgery, categorizing them into two groups: right-side colon cancer (Table 4) and left-side colon cancer (Table 5). Additionally, we analyzed our data by tumor location and included the results.

In the earlier studies, the transvaginal route was mainly used for specimen extraction after right hemicolectomy, which limits the method’s use to female patients [8, 13]. Kong et al. reported the use of colonoscope and endoscopic snare to complete a transcolonic route for specimen extraction in ascending colon cancer, which expand the application of NOSE [25]. In addition, recent study conducted by Zhang et al. reported using a transrectal route after right hemicolectomy employing a technique very similar to that used at our institution, and found no difference in operation time between NOSE and CL [26].

In our study, a total of 40 patients underwent transrectal NOSE after right hemicolectomy. Only one patient developed pancreatitis in the NOSE group and no complications were found relating to the rectal incision. The data from Zhang et al. also showed no complication related to the rectal incision, attributing this to the sufficient blood supply and lack of tension in the upper rectum [26]. These findings suggest the feasibility of rectal incision for transrectal specimen extraction. However, the mean operation time was longer in the NOSE group in our study. This may reflect the time required for careful specimen extraction to avoid damaging the specimen, resulting in contamination and tumor dissemination. Moreover, meticulous closure of the rectal incision was also a time-consuming in our experience.

Comparison of studies on NOSE performed on left-sided tumors with a lower margin located above 10 cm from anal verge is included in Table 5. The transanal route of specimen extraction was considered analogous to the transrectal route. Various techniques were used in specimen resection which can be broadly categorized into the pull-through method and the total intracorporeal method.

In the pull-through method, after resection of the distal margin, the proximal colon along with the tumor was pulled out from the rectal stump or through the vaginal opening. This method requires the proximal colon to be mobilized as much as possible. Fixation of the anvil was also performed extracorporeally in the usual manner as in conventional laparoscopy. In the total intracorporeal method, the specimen resection was first performed intracorporeally. The specimen was then extracted through the rectal stump and the anvil was delivered. Anvil fixation to the proximal colon may be done with a snare or a purse-string suture. The rectal stump may be closed by purse-string suture or linear stapler. In our study, we used a purse-string suture for anvil fixation and closed the rectum with linear stapler to conducted a double-stapling end-to-end anastomosis. The shorter operative time and comparable complication rate in the NOSE group suggest that this technique is an efficient method for transrectal NOSE for left-side colon cancer.

Table 4 Characteristics of included studies on right-sided colon

Authors	Publication
year	Patient number,
NOSE vs. CL	Location	Specimen extraction
site	Method to close natural orifice	Surgical time
(min),
NOSE vs. CL
(p)	All
Complications (%)
NOSE vs. CL
(p)	
Park et al. [8]	2011	34 vs. 34	Right side colon	Transvaginal	Close colpotomy transvaginally	171 vs. 147

(p = 0.094)

	11.7 vs. 26.5

(p = 0.119)

	
Li et al. [13]	2019	31 vs. 31	Right side colon	Transvaginal	Endoscopic suture	186 vs. 182

(p = 0.578)

	6.4 vs. 29.0

(p = 0.006)

	
Kong et al. [25]	2021	45 vs. 45	Ascending colon	Transcolonic	Linear stapler	125 vs. 118

(p = 0.963)

	20 vs. 22.2

(p = 0.960)

	
Zhang et al. [26]	2023	40 vs. 80	Right side colon	Transrectal	Endoscopic suture	170 vs. 165

(p = 0.894)

	17.5 vs. 25.0

(p = 0.505)

	
This study	2023	40 vs. 40	Right side colon	Transrectal	Endoscopic suture	241 vs. 206

(p = 0.017)

	2.5 vs. 7.5

(p = 0.615)

	

Table 5 Characteristics of included studies on left-sided colon

Authors	Publication
year	Patient number,
NOSE vs. CL	Location of tumor	Specimen extraction
site	Specimen resection	Surgical time
(min),
NOSE vs. CL
(p value)	All
complications (%),
NOSE vs. CL
(p value)	
Kim et al. [39]	2014	58 vs. 58	Sigmoid colon or rectum	Transvaginal	Total intracorporeal and pull-through method	149 vs. 132

(p = 0.023)

	3.4 vs. 12.1

(p = 0.162)

	
Hisada et al. [34]	2014	20 vs. 50	Distal sigmoid to upper rectum	Transanal	Pull-through method	278 vs. 240

(p > 0.05)

	20.0 vs. 24.0

(p > 0.05)

	
Ding et al. [12]	2019	43 vs. 43	Sigmoid colon or upper rectum	Transrectal	Total intracorporeal	132 vs. 123

(p = 0.130)

	9.3 vs. 9.3

(p > 0.05)

	
Zhou et al. [10]	2020	100 vs. 119	Sigmoid colon or upper rectum	Transrectal	Total intracorporeal	167 vs. 146

(p = 0.014)

	9.0 vs. 15.9

(p = 0.016)

	
Chang et al. [15]	2020	94 vs. 94	Sigmoid colon or upper rectum	Transrectal	Total intracorporeal and pull-through method	248 vs. 208

(p < 0.001)

	7.4 vs. 11.7

(p > 0.05)

	
This study	2023	142 vs. 150	Distal descending colon to upper rectum	Transrectal	Total intracorporeal	191 vs. 218

(p < 0.001)

	9.3 vs. 4.2

(p = 0.084)

	

Notably, most studies conducted on left-side colon cancer did not include tumors near the splenic flexure. Performing left hemicolectomy for splenic flexure tumors may leave a long colon stump, making it more technically challenging to use the same transrectal NOSE technique as in anterior resection. This is due to the lengthy route the specimen must travel within the colon, and anastomosis using a circular stapler may not be feasible because of the limited shaft insertion length. In our study, for tumors near the splenic flexure, we performed a standard left hemicolectomy and intracorporeal side-to-side anastomosis. An additional rectal incision was made for specimen extraction and closed with barded suture using the same techniques as for right-sided colon cancer. We conducted this technique on a total of 59 patients, all without complication related to the rectal incision. According to the guidelines on NOSE for colorectal cancer, it is recommended that the rectal incision be made on the anterior wall of the middle rectum above the peritoneal reflection, with a length of about 3 cm, and the incision direction should be parallel to the direction of the rectum. In our institute, the rectal incision was made at the upper rectum, and its fair elasticity allows the TEM scope to advance through the rectal opening.

Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) has gradually gained attention, including in surgeries beyond colorectal surgery such as hepatectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy, and gastrectomy [40–42]. However, the transvaginal route was mainly used for NOSE, limiting its application to female patients. Moreover, young women who have not completed their families should not be recommended for transvaginal NOSE. [27] We hope that our study has contributed to the positive short-term outcomes and feasibility of transrectal NOSE and that it will expand its use for other types of specimen extraction, regardless of patient sex. However, the specimen size should also be taken into account. We recommend the use of transrectal NOSE for tumors smaller than 5 cm. Larger tumors may still require the transvaginal route for NOSE [27, 43].

This study is limited due to its retrospective nature and lack of randomization. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to balance the sampling bias of patients likely to undergo NOSE. However, additional confounding variables may influence the results.

One significant issue is that previous studies have shown that intracorporeal anastomosis has a positive impact on bowel recovery and wound-related outcomes compared to extracorporeal anastomosis [44, 45]. In this study, the majority of patients in the CL group received extracorporeal anastomosis, similar to previous conducted studies on NOSE. In contrast, all patients in the NOSE group received intracorporeal anastomosis, which may account for the better postoperative recovery results observed in the NOSE group. A small number of studies that conducted intracorporeal anastomosis in both the NOSE and CL groups showed better bowel function recovery and wound pain outcomes in the NOSE group.

Another limitation is that in our study, the mini-laparotomy incision in the CL group was performed with a Pfannenstiel incision or by extending the midline umbilical port wound or right lower quadrant port wound. Due to the heterogeneity of incision sites, patients were expected to have higher pain scores in the CL group. If all CL patients had used the Pfannenstiel incision, the difference in pain scores might have been less pronounced.

Additionally, intraoperative findings such as a bulky mesocolon, narrow pelvis, or extensive adhesions may affect the surgeon’s decision to perform NOSE. This study did not present data on the NOSE failure rate, specimen damage during extraction, or postoperative anorectal function. Randomized controlled trials could provide more reliable data.

Finally, one of the primary limitations of our study is the lack of long-term follow-up data. Without extended follow-up, it is challenging to assess the durability of the postoperative recovery benefits observed with NOSE and compare the long-term outcomes between NOSE and conventional minimally invasive surgery. Furthermore, our study lacks comprehensive oncological data, which limits our ability to evaluate long-term cancer survival outcomes.

Conclusions

The transrectal NOSE may offer potential advantages over conventional mini-laparotomy following minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer such as reduced time to oral intake, shorter hospital stays, and less postoperative pain. However, these findings must be interpreted with caution due to limitations, including the heterogeneity of intra- and extracorporeal anastomosis techniques and incision sites across the study groups, as well as the lack of data on NOSE failure rates and specimen damage. NOSE may be suitable for highly selective patient populations, but more comprehensive prospective studies and randomized controlled trials are required to fully assess its short-term and long-term outcomes.

Acknowledgements

This manuscript was edited by Wallace Academic Editing.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by I.L.L., P.S.H., and C.K.L. The analysis was performed by L.Y.C., Y.J.H., and J.F.Y . The first draft of the manuscript was written by L.Y.C., Y.J.C., and B.K.J. All authors commented on the previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Chang Gung Medical Research Fund (CMRPG3J1531 and CPRPG3N0031). The funder had no role in study design and analysis.

Data availability

The datasets used or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Sung H Ferlay J Siegel RL Global Cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin May 2021 71 3 209 49 10.3322/caac.21660
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin May. 2021;71(3):209–49.10.3322/caac.21660
2. Lacy AM García-Valdecasas JC Delgado S Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial Lancet Jun 2002 29 9325 2224 9 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09290-5
Lacy AM, García-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Jun. 2002;29(9325):2224–9.10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09290-5
3. Nelson H Sargent DJ Wieand HS A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer N Engl J Med May 2004 13 20 2050 9
Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, et al. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med May. 2004;13(20):2050–9.
4. Jayne DG Guillou PJ Thorpe H Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group J Clin Oncol Jul 2007 20 21 3061 8 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.7758
Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol Jul. 2007;20(21):3061–8.10.1200/JCO.2006.09.7758
5. van der Pas MH Haglind E Cuesta MA Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol Mar 2013 14 3 210 8 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0
van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol Mar. 2013;14(3):210–8.10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0
6. Franklin ME Ramos R Rosenthal D Schuessler W Laparoscopic colonic procedures World J Surg 1993/01/01 1993 17 1 51 6 10.1007/BF01655705
Franklin ME, Ramos R, Rosenthal D, Schuessler W. Laparoscopic colonic procedures. World J Surg 1993/01/01. 1993;17(1):51–6.10.1007/BF01655705
7. Wolthuis AM de Buck A D’Hoore A Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction-colectomy: a systematic review World J Gastroenterol Sep 2014 28 36 12981 92 10.3748/wjg.v20.i36.12981
Wolthuis AM, de Buck A, D’Hoore A. Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction-colectomy: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol Sep. 2014;28(36):12981–92.10.3748/wjg.v20.i36.12981
8. Park JS Choi GS Kim HJ Park SY Jun SH Natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopically assisted right hemicolectomy Br J Surg May 2011 98 5 710 5 10.1002/bjs.7419
Park JS, Choi GS, Kim HJ, Park SY, Jun SH. Natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopically assisted right hemicolectomy. Br J Surg May. 2011;98(5):710–5.10.1002/bjs.7419
9. Franklin ME Jr Liang S Russek K Natural orifice specimen extraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: transanal and transvaginal approaches Tech Coloproctol Feb 2013 17 Suppl 1 S63 67 10.1007/s10151-012-0938-y
Franklin ME Jr., Liang S, Russek K. Natural orifice specimen extraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: transanal and transvaginal approaches. Tech Coloproctol Feb. 2013;17(Suppl 1):S63–67.10.1007/s10151-012-0938-y
10. Zhou ZQ Wang K Du T Transrectal Natural Orifice Specimen extraction (NOSE) with Oncological Safety: a prospective and randomized trial J Surg Res Oct 2020 254 16 22 10.1016/j.jss.2020.03.064
Zhou ZQ, Wang K, Du T, et al. Transrectal Natural Orifice Specimen extraction (NOSE) with Oncological Safety: a prospective and randomized trial. J Surg Res Oct. 2020;254:16–22.10.1016/j.jss.2020.03.064
11. Zhu Z Wang KJ Orangio GR Clinical efficacy and quality of life after transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction for the treatment of middle and upper rectal cancer J Gastrointest Oncol Apr 2020 11 2 260 8 10.21037/jgo.2020.03.05
Zhu Z, Wang KJ, Orangio GR, et al. Clinical efficacy and quality of life after transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction for the treatment of middle and upper rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol Apr. 2020;11(2):260–8.10.21037/jgo.2020.03.05
12. .Ding Y Li Z Gao H Cao Y Jin W Comparison of efficacy between natural orifice specimen extraction without abdominal incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of sigmoid colon cancer and upper rectal cancer J Buon Sep-Oct 2019 24 5 1817 23
.Ding Y, Li Z, Gao H, Cao Y, Jin W. Comparison of efficacy between natural orifice specimen extraction without abdominal incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of sigmoid colon cancer and upper rectal cancer. J Buon Sep-Oct. 2019;24(5):1817–23.
13. Li XW Wang CY Zhang JJ Ge Z Lin XH Hu JH Short-term efficacy of transvaginal specimen extraction for right colon cancer based on propensity score matching: a retrospective cohort study Int J Surg Dec 2019 72 102 8 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.07.025
Li XW, Wang CY, Zhang JJ, Ge Z, Lin XH, Hu JH. Short-term efficacy of transvaginal specimen extraction for right colon cancer based on propensity score matching: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg Dec. 2019;72:102–8.10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.07.025
14. Zhou S Wang X Zhao C Comparison of short-term and survival outcomes for transanal natural orifice specimen extraction with conventional mini-laparotomy after laparoscopic anterior resection for colorectal cancer Cancer Manag Res 2019 11 5939 48 10.2147/CMAR.S209194 31303795
Zhou S, Wang X, Zhao C, et al. Comparison of short-term and survival outcomes for transanal natural orifice specimen extraction with conventional mini-laparotomy after laparoscopic anterior resection for colorectal cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:5939–48.31303795 10.2147/CMAR.S209194
15. Chang SC Chen HC Chen YC Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic anterior resections for Cancer with Natural Orifice Versus Conventional Specimen extraction: a case-control study Dis Colon Rectum Aug 2020 63 8 1071 9 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001622
Chang SC, Chen HC, Chen YC, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic anterior resections for Cancer with Natural Orifice Versus Conventional Specimen extraction: a case-control study. Dis Colon Rectum Aug. 2020;63(8):1071–9.10.1097/DCR.0000000000001622
16. Park JS Kang H Park SY Kim HJ Lee IT Choi GS Long-term outcomes after natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopy-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a matched case-control study Ann Surg Treat Res Jan 2018 94 1 26 35 10.4174/astr.2018.94.1.26
Park JS, Kang H, Park SY, Kim HJ, Lee IT, Choi GS. Long-term outcomes after natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopy-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a matched case-control study. Ann Surg Treat Res Jan. 2018;94(1):26–35.10.4174/astr.2018.94.1.26
17. Brincat SD, Lauri J, Cini C. Natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: meta-analysis. BJS Open 2022;6(3).
18. Denost Q Adam J-P Pontallier A Celerier B Laurent C Rullier E Laparoscopic total Mesorectal Excision with Coloanal Anastomosis for rectal Cancer Ann Surg 2015 261 1 138 43 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000855 25185482
Denost Q, Adam J-P, Pontallier A, Celerier B, Laurent C, Rullier E. Laparoscopic total Mesorectal Excision with Coloanal Anastomosis for rectal Cancer. Ann Surg. 2015;261(1):138–43.25185482 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000855
19. Chen C Chen H Yang M Laparoscopy-assisted natural orifice Specimen extraction to treat tumors of the sigmoid Colon and rectum: the short- and long-term outcomes of a retrospective study J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Jun 2019 29 6 801 8 10.1089/lap.2018.0601
Chen C, Chen H, Yang M, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted natural orifice Specimen extraction to treat tumors of the sigmoid Colon and rectum: the short- and long-term outcomes of a retrospective study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Jun. 2019;29(6):801–8.10.1089/lap.2018.0601
20. Franklin ME Jr Kelley H Kelley M Brestan L Portillo G Torres J Transvaginal extraction of the specimen after total laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Jun 2008 18 3 294 8 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181772d8b
Franklin ME Jr., Kelley H, Kelley M, Brestan L, Portillo G, Torres J. Transvaginal extraction of the specimen after total laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Jun. 2008;18(3):294–8.10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181772d8b
21. Cheng CC Hsu YR Chern YJ Minimally invasive right colectomy with transrectal natural orifice extraction: could this be the next step forward? Tech Coloproctol Nov 2020 24 11 1197 205 10.1007/s10151-020-02282-x
Cheng CC, Hsu YR, Chern YJ, et al. Minimally invasive right colectomy with transrectal natural orifice extraction: could this be the next step forward? Tech Coloproctol Nov. 2020;24(11):1197–205.10.1007/s10151-020-02282-x
22. Leung AL Cheung HY Fok BK Chung CC Li MK Tang CN Prospective randomized trial of hybrid NOTES colectomy versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for left-sided colonic tumors World J Surg Nov 2013 37 11 2678 82 10.1007/s00268-013-2163-x
Leung AL, Cheung HY, Fok BK, Chung CC, Li MK, Tang CN. Prospective randomized trial of hybrid NOTES colectomy versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for left-sided colonic tumors. World J Surg Nov. 2013;37(11):2678–82.10.1007/s00268-013-2163-x
23. Jong BK, Cheng CC, Hsu YJ et al. Transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction in left hemicolectomy for tumours around the splenic flexure: old wine in new bottles. Colorectal Dis Oct 2 2021.
24. Awad ZT Griffin R Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a comparison of natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction Surg Endosc Oct 2014 28 10 2871 6 10.1007/s00464-014-3540-8
Awad ZT, Griffin R. Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a comparison of natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction. Surg Endosc Oct. 2014;28(10):2871–6.10.1007/s00464-014-3540-8
25. Kong FB Deng QM Deng HQ Propensity score-matched comparison between totally laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transcolonic natural orifice specimen extraction and conventional laparoscopic surgery with mini-laparotomy in the treatment of ascending colon cancer (with video) Gastrointest Endosc Sep 2021 94 3 642 50 10.1016/j.gie.2021.03.028
Kong FB, Deng QM, Deng HQ, et al. Propensity score-matched comparison between totally laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transcolonic natural orifice specimen extraction and conventional laparoscopic surgery with mini-laparotomy in the treatment of ascending colon cancer (with video). Gastrointest Endosc Sep. 2021;94(3):642–50.10.1016/j.gie.2021.03.028
26. Zhang M Liu Z Sun P Preliminary surgical outcomes of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transrectal specimen extraction: a propensity score matching study of 120 cases (with video) Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 2023 11 goad036 10.1093/gastro/goad036 37398927
Zhang M, Liu Z, Sun P, et al. Preliminary surgical outcomes of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transrectal specimen extraction: a propensity score matching study of 120 cases (with video). Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2023;11:goad036.37398927 10.1093/gastro/goad036
27. Guan X Liu Z Longo A International consensus on natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for colorectal cancer Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) Feb 2019 7 1 24 31 10.1093/gastro/goy055
Guan X, Liu Z, Longo A, et al. International consensus on natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) Feb. 2019;7(1):24–31.10.1093/gastro/goy055
28. Hsu YJ Chern YJ Jhuang JR Efficient and safe method for Splenic Flexure mobilization in laparoscopic left hemicolectomy: a propensity score-weighted Cohort Study Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Dec 2020 4 2 196 202
Hsu YJ, Chern YJ, Jhuang JR, et al. Efficient and safe method for Splenic Flexure mobilization in laparoscopic left hemicolectomy: a propensity score-weighted Cohort Study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Dec. 2020;4(2):196–202.
29. Dindo D Demartines N Clavien PA Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey Ann Surg Aug 2004 240 2 205 13 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg Aug. 2004;240(2):205–13.10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
30. Apfelbaum JL Chen C Mehta SS Gan TJ Postoperative pain experience: results from a national survey suggest postoperative pain continues to be undermanaged Anesth Analg Aug 2003 97 2 534 40 10.1213/01.ANE.0000068822.10113.9E
Apfelbaum JL, Chen C, Mehta SS, Gan TJ. Postoperative pain experience: results from a national survey suggest postoperative pain continues to be undermanaged. Anesth Analg Aug. 2003;97(2):534–40. table of contents.10.1213/01.ANE.0000068822.10113.9E
31. Peters ML Sommer M de Rijke JM Somatic and psychologic predictors of long-term unfavorable outcome after surgical intervention Ann Surg Mar 2007 245 3 487 94 10.1097/01.sla.0000245495.79781.65
Peters ML, Sommer M, de Rijke JM, et al. Somatic and psychologic predictors of long-term unfavorable outcome after surgical intervention. Ann Surg Mar. 2007;245(3):487–94.10.1097/01.sla.0000245495.79781.65
32. Kalkman JC Visser K Moen J Bonsel JG Grobbee ED Moons MKG Preoperative prediction of severe postoperative pain Pain Oct 2003 105 3 415 23 10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00252-5
Kalkman JC, Visser K, Moen J, Bonsel JG, Grobbee ED, Moons MKG. Preoperative prediction of severe postoperative pain. Pain Oct. 2003;105(3):415–23.10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00252-5
33. Wolthuis AM Fieuws S Van Den Bosch A de Buck van Overstraeten A D’Hoore A Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic colectomy with or without natural-orifice specimen extraction Br J Surg May 2015 102 6 630 7 10.1002/bjs.9757
Wolthuis AM, Fieuws S, Van Den Bosch A, de Buck van Overstraeten A, D’Hoore A. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic colectomy with or without natural-orifice specimen extraction. Br J Surg May. 2015;102(6):630–7.10.1002/bjs.9757
34. Hisada M Katsumata K Ishizaki T Complete laparoscopic resection of the rectum using natural orifice specimen extraction World J Gastroenterol Nov 2014 28 44 16707 13 10.3748/wjg.v20.i44.16707
Hisada M, Katsumata K, Ishizaki T, et al. Complete laparoscopic resection of the rectum using natural orifice specimen extraction. World J Gastroenterol Nov. 2014;28(44):16707–13.10.3748/wjg.v20.i44.16707
35. Chin YH, Decruz GM, Ng CH et al. Colorectal resection via natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic extraction: a meta-analysis with meta-regression. Tech Coloproctol Aug 26 2020.
36. Costantino FA Diana M Wall J Leroy J Mutter D Marescaux J Prospective evaluation of peritoneal fluid contamination following transabdominal vs. transanal specimen extraction in laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections Surg Endosc Jun 2012 26 6 1495 500 10.1007/s00464-011-2066-6
Costantino FA, Diana M, Wall J, Leroy J, Mutter D, Marescaux J. Prospective evaluation of peritoneal fluid contamination following transabdominal vs. transanal specimen extraction in laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections. Surg Endosc Jun. 2012;26(6):1495–500.10.1007/s00464-011-2066-6
37. Ouyang Q Peng J Xu S Chen J Wang W Comparison of NOSES and conventional laparoscopic surgery in Colorectal Cancer: bacteriological and oncological concerns Front Oncol 2020 10 946 10.3389/fonc.2020.00946 32670877
Ouyang Q, Peng J, Xu S, Chen J, Wang W. Comparison of NOSES and conventional laparoscopic surgery in Colorectal Cancer: bacteriological and oncological concerns. Front Oncol. 2020;10:946.32670877 10.3389/fonc.2020.00946
38. Liu RJ Zhang CD Fan YC Pei JP Zhang C Dai DQ Safety and Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic NOSE surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal diseases: a Meta-analysis Front Oncol 2019 9 597 10.3389/fonc.2019.00597 31334119
Liu RJ, Zhang CD, Fan YC, Pei JP, Zhang C, Dai DQ. Safety and Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic NOSE surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal diseases: a Meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2019;9:597.31334119 10.3389/fonc.2019.00597
39. Kim HJ Choi GS Park JS Park SY Ryuk JP Yoon SH Transvaginal specimen extraction versus conventional minilaparotomy after laparoscopic anterior resection for colorectal cancer: mid-term results of a case-matched study Surg Endosc Aug 2014 28 8 2342 8 10.1007/s00464-014-3466-1
Kim HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY, Ryuk JP, Yoon SH. Transvaginal specimen extraction versus conventional minilaparotomy after laparoscopic anterior resection for colorectal cancer: mid-term results of a case-matched study. Surg Endosc Aug. 2014;28(8):2342–8.10.1007/s00464-014-3466-1
40. Glorioso JM Nguyen MC Long J Robotic full lobe Hepatectomy with Natural orifice extraction: Case Series describing the Novel technique of robotic major Hepatectomy and transvaginal specimen extraction Ann Surg Open Mar 2021 2 1 e041 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000041
Glorioso JM, Nguyen MC, Long J, et al. Robotic full lobe Hepatectomy with Natural orifice extraction: Case Series describing the Novel technique of robotic major Hepatectomy and transvaginal specimen extraction. Ann Surg Open Mar. 2021;2(1):e041.10.1097/AS9.0000000000000041
41. Zhang L Sun D Zhang Y Gao F Guo Y Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-center case series Int J Surg Oct 2020 82 95 9 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.043
Zhang L, Sun D, Zhang Y, Gao F, Guo Y. Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-center case series. Int J Surg Oct. 2020;82:95–9.10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.043
42. Zhang ZC Luo QF Wang WS Chen JH Wang CY Ma D Development and future perspectives of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for gastric cancer World J Gastrointest Surg Nov 2022 27 11 1198 203 10.4240/wjgs.v14.i11.1198
Zhang ZC, Luo QF, Wang WS, Chen JH, Wang CY, Ma D. Development and future perspectives of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for gastric cancer. World J Gastrointest Surg Nov. 2022;27(11):1198–203.10.4240/wjgs.v14.i11.1198
43. Liu Z, Guan X, Zhang M et al. International guideline on natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for colorectal cancer (2023 version). Holistic Integrative Oncology. 2023/04/23 2023;2(1):9.
44. Aiolfi A Bona D Guerrazzi G Intracorporeal Versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and cumulative Meta-analysis J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Apr 2020 30 4 402 12 10.1089/lap.2019.0693
Aiolfi A, Bona D, Guerrazzi G, et al. Intracorporeal Versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and cumulative Meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Apr. 2020;30(4):402–12.10.1089/lap.2019.0693
45. Allaix ME Degiuli M Bonino MA Intracorporeal or extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy: a double-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial Ann Surg Nov 2019 270 5 762 7 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003519
Allaix ME, Degiuli M, Bonino MA, et al. Intracorporeal or extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy: a double-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg Nov. 2019;270(5):762–7.10.1097/SLA.0000000000003519
