Despite advancements, specimen extraction through mini-laparotomy in traditional minimally invasive surgery still carries risks of wound-related complications such as infection, incisional hernia, and poor cosmetic results. Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) has been suggested as an alternative to eliminate the need for an abdominal incision, potentially improving postoperative recovery and reducing complications. This systematic review aims to critically compare the clinical and oncologic outcomes of NOSE with conventional laparoscopic anterior resection.
Methods:
Our search was conducted in line with the most recent Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. An electronic search was conducted of the PubMed and EMBASE databases up to March 2025.
Results:
After screening, 14 studies including 1149 patients undergoing anterior resection of rectal, sigmoid, and rectosigmoid tumors were included in this review, comprising 502 NOSE and 647 conventional patients. Compared with conventional transabdominal specimen extraction, NOSE was associated with longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 12.44 minutes; 95% CI: 1.54–23.35; P = .03), lower estimated blood loss (WMD: −13.75 mL; 95% CI: −25.33 to −2.16; P = .02), and shorter hospital stays (WMD: −0.75 days; 95% CI: −1.03 to −0.48; P < .001). The tumor diameter was smaller in the NOSE cohort (WMD: −0.43 cm; 95% CI: −0.73 to −0.14; P < .01), but there were no significant differences in total lymph node harvest or number of metastatic nodes compared with the conventional approach. Overall complication rates favored NOSE (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.34–0.86; P = .01), driven largely by reduced infections (OR: 0.24; P = .003), while anastomotic leak, hemorrhage, ileus, and reoperation rates did not differ significantly.
Conclusions:
NOSE is a potential alternative in select patients undergoing anterior resection. However, it is associated with longer operative times, and there is a lack of data on long-term outcomes, such as hernia formation or oncologic safety.
SungH, FerlayJ, SiegelRL, et al.Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021; 71(3):209–249; doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
2.
MorganE, ArnoldM, GiniA, et al.Global burden of colorectal cancer in 2020 and 2040: Incidence and mortality estimates from GLOBOCAN. Gut, 2023; 72(2):338–344; doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327736
3.
SharmaR, Abbasi-KangevariM, Abd-RabuR, et al.Global, regional, and national burden of colorectal cancer and its risk factors, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 2022; 7(7):627–647; doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00044-9
4.
BrayF, LaversanneM, SungH, et al.Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin, 2024; 74(3):229–263; doi: 10.3322/caac.21834
5.
DaminDC, LazzaronAR. Evolving treatment strategies for colorectal cancer: A critical review of current therapeutic options. World J Gastroenterol, 2014; 20(4):877–887; doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i4.877
6.
SmithHG, SchlesingerNH, QvortrupC, et al.Variations in the definition and perceived importance of positive resection margins in patients with colorectal cancer – an EYSAC international survey. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2023; 49(11):107072; doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.107072
7.
IordacheIE, HerloL-F, PopescuR, et al.Cutting edge: A comprehensive guide to colorectal cancer surgery in inflammatory bowel diseases. Jmms, 2025; 12(1):6.
8.
MonsonJR, WeiserMR, BuieWD, et al.; Standards Practice Task Force of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon Rectum, 2013; 56(5):535–550; doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31828cb66c
9.
ProbstP. A review of the role of robotics in surgery: To Davinci and Beyond. ! Mo Med, 2023; 120(5):389–396.
10.
DengK, LiY-R, GuoT-L, et al.Clinical efficacy analysis of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of rectal cancer: A single-center retrospective analysis. Tech Coloproctol, 2025; 29(1):140; doi: 10.1007/s10151-025-03186-4
11.
HuangX, WeiR, LiQ, et al.Development and prospects of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: A review article. Int J Surg, 2025; 111(4):2973–2989; doi: 10.1097/js9.0000000000002285
12.
LeungALH, CheungHYS, FokBKL, et al.Prospective Randomized Trial of Hybrid NOTES colectomy versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for left-sided colonic tumors. World J Surg, 2013; 37(11):2678–2682; doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-2163-x
13.
ParuchJL. Extraction site in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Clin Colon Rectal Surg, 2023; 36(1):47–51; doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1758352
14.
PompeuBF, Mara Vieira RochaV, Machado OliveiraAF, et al.Natural orifice specimen extraction for right-sided colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies. Cureus, 2025; 17(5):e84191; doi: 10.7759/cureus.84191
15.
Seow-EnI, ChenLR, LiYX, et al.Outcomes after natural orifice extraction vs conventional specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis. World J Clin Oncol, 2022; 13(10):789–801; doi: 10.5306/wjco.v13.i10.789
16.
ZhouZ-Q, WangK, DuT, et al.Transrectal Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction (NOSE) with oncological safety: A prospective and randomized trial. J Surg Res, 2020; 254:16–22; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.03.064
17.
ChanL-Y, ChernY-J, HsuY-J, et al.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. World J Surg Oncol, 2024; 22(1):237; doi: 10.1186/s12957-024-03513-3
18.
LiuX, YuanX, YeP, et al.Comparison of postoperative inflammatory response between natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopy in the treatment of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Surg, 2025; 111(1):1244–1254; doi: 10.1097/js9.0000000000001912
19.
ReDatiD, LiW, JiangY, et al.Short-term and long-term survival outcomes for transrectal specimen extraction after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: A propensity-score matching study. Front Oncol, 2023; 13:1252253; doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1252253
20.
AwadZT, GriffinR. Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: A comparison of natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction. Surg Endosc, 2014; 28(10):2871–2876; doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3540-8
21.
BrincatSD, LauriJ, CiniC. Natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: Meta-analysis. BJS Open, 2022; 6(3):zrac074; doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac074
22.
LiZ, XiongH, QiaoT, et al.Long-term oncologic outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment of rectal cancer: A propensity-score matching study. BMC Surg, 2022; 22(1):286; doi: 10.1186/s12893-022-01737-2
23.
XuS-Z, WangZ-F, DingZ-J, et al.Comparative long-term outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic colectomy for left-sided colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis. International Journal of Surgery, 2024; 110(3):1402–1410.
24.
YuH, LuW, ZhongC, et al.Transvaginal versus transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for right colon cancer: A propensity matching study. Front Oncol, 2023; 13:1168961; doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1168961
25.
GuanX, LiuZ, LongoA, et al.; International Alliance of NOSES. International consensus on natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf), 2019; 7(1):24–31; doi: 10.1093/gastro/goy055
26.
YaoH, LiT, ChenW, et al.Safety and feasibility of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in colorectal neoplasms during the initial learning curve. Front Oncol, 2020; 10:1355; doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01355
LiuZ, GuanX, ZhangM, et al.International guideline on natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for colorectal cancer (2023 version). Holist Integ Oncol, 2023; 2(1):9; doi: 10.1007/s44178-023-00034-z
29.
SehgalR, CahillRA. Advanced laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: NOTES/NOSE or single port? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol, 2014; 28(1):81–96; doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2013.11.010
30.
ZenginA, OkutG, TurgutE. Complications and management of natural orifice specimen extraction in colorectal cancer: A narrative review. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg, 2022; 7:24.
31.
PageMJ, McKenzieJE, BossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 2021; 10(1):89; doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
32.
BrownD. A review of the PubMed PICO tool: Using evidence-based practice in health education. Health Promot Pract, 2020; 21(4):496–498; doi: 10.1177/1524839919893361
33.
OuzzaniM, HammadyH, FedorowiczZ, et al.Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 2016; 5(1):210; doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
34.
WellsGA, SheaB, O’ConnellD, et al.The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute: Oxford; 2000.
35.
BarkerTH, MigliavacaCB, SteinC, et al.Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: A guide for synthesisers of evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2021; 21(1):189; doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01381-z
36.
NyagaVN, ArbynM, AertsM. Metaprop: A Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health, 2014; 72(1):39; doi: 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39
37.
HigginsJP, ThompsonSG, DeeksJJ, et al.Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj, 2003; 327(7414):557–560; doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
38.
BorensteinM, HedgesLV, HigginsJP, et al.A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods, 2010; 1(2):97–111; doi: 10.1002/jrsm.12
39.
AslanerA, ÇakırT, EyvazK, et al.Comparison of robotic-assisted resection alone and with natural orifice specimen extraction for rectal cancer by using Da Vinci Xi. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2022; 26(18):6665–6670; doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202209_29767
40.
EfetovSK, TulinaIA, KimVD, et al.Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery with rectal eversion and total extra-abdominal resection. Tech Coloproctol, 2019; 23(9):899–902; doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-02058-y
41.
GaoG, ChenL, LuoR, et al.Short- and long-term outcomes for transvaginal specimen extraction versus minilaparotomy after robotic anterior resection for colorectal cancer: A mono-institution retrospective study. World J Surg Oncol, 2020; 18(1):190; doi: 10.1186/s12957-020-01967-9
42.
HanFH, HuaLX, ZhaoZ, et al.Transanal natural orifice specimen extraction for laparoscopic anterior resection in rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol, 2013; 19(43):7751–7757; doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i43.7751
43.
HisadaM, KatsumataK, IshizakiT, et al.Complete laparoscopic resection of the rectum using natural orifice specimen extraction. World J Gastroenterol, 2014; 20(44):16707–16713; doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i44.16707
44.
HuJH, LiXW, WangCY, et al.Short-term efficacy of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for low rectal cancer. World J Clin Cases, 2019; 7(2):122–129; doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i2.122
45.
KeZ, ZijianD, HaiH, et al.The feasibility, safety and short-term clinical efficacy of laparoscopic anterior resection of rectal cancer with left colonic artery (LCA) preservation and natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE). BMC Surg, 2022; 22(1):308; doi: 10.1186/s12893-022-01719-4
46.
LuZ, ChenH, ZhangM, et al.Safety and survival outcomes of transanal natural orifice specimen extraction using prolapsing technique for patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer. Chin J Cancer Res, 2020; 32(5):654–664; doi: 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2020.05.10
47.
NgHI, SunWQ, ZhaoXM, et al.Outcomes of trans-anal natural orifice specimen extraction combined with laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid and rectal carcinoma: An observational study. Medicine (Baltimore), 2018; 97(38):e12347; doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000012347
48.
SaurabhB, ChangSC, KeTW, et al.Natural orifice specimen extraction with single stapling colorectal anastomosis for laparoscopic anterior resection: Feasibility, outcomes, and technical considerations. Dis Colon Rectum, 2017; 60(1):43–50; doi: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000000739
49.
WangJ, HongJ, WangQ, et al.A Novel Method of Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) during laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2021; 2021:6610737; doi: 10.1155/2021/6610737
50.
WangR, WeiZ, LiuQ, et al.Transanal versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A retrospective analysis from China. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne, 2019; 14(2):203–209; doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2018.79529
51.
XingmaoZ, HaitaoZ, JianweiL, et al.Totally laparoscopic resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) has more advantages comparing with laparoscopic-assisted resection for selected patients with sigmoid colon or rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2014; 29(9):1119–1124; doi: 10.1007/s00384-014-1950-7
52.
ZhouH, WangA, LuH, et al.Three-port with natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal-sigmoid cancer: A matched pair analysis. J Invest Surg, 2022; 35(4):788–792; doi: 10.1080/08941939.2021.1956651
53.
ZhengZ, KangF, YangY, et al.Short-term clinical outcomes and five-year survival analysis of laparoscopic-assisted transanal natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid and rectal cancer: A single-center retrospective study. Front Surg, 2023; 10:1340869; doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1340869
54.
ImaokaK, ShimomuraM, OkudaH, et al.Intraoperative blood loss predicts local recurrence after curative resection for stage I-III colorectal cancer. World J Surg, 2025; 49(5):1172–1182; doi: 10.1002/wjs.12533
55.
MorrisFJD, FungY-L, CraswellA, et al.Outcomes following perioperative red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth, 2023; 131(6):1002–1013; doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.08.032
56.
ZhangW, XuH, HuangB, et al.Association of perioperative allogeneic blood transfusions and long-term outcomes following radical surgery for gastric and colorectal cancers: Systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-adjusted observational studies. BJS Open, 2023; 7(4):zrad075; doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad075
57.
McDonaldJR, RenehanAG, O’DwyerST, et al.Lymph node harvest in colon and rectal cancer: Current considerations. World J Gastrointest Surg, 2012; 4(1):9–19; doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v4.i1.9
58.
O’BoyleS, StephensonK. More is better: Lymph node harvesting in colorectal cancer. Am J Surg, 2017; 213(5):926–930; doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.03.012
59.
WangK, ZhuZ, GaoW, et al.Factors influencing the application of transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction performed laparoscopically for colorectal cancer: A retrospective study. Asian J Surg, 2021; 44(1):164–168; doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.04.008
ChangSC, ChenHC, ChenYC, 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, 2020; 63(8):1071–1079; doi: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000001622
62.
HeJ, YaoHB, WangCJ, et al.Meta-analysis of laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE-LAR) versus abdominal incision specimen extraction (AISE-LAR) for sigmoid or rectal tumors. World J Surg Oncol, 2020; 18(1):215; doi: 10.1186/s12957-020-01982-w
63.
TaylorSM, TuminD, TiuLC, et al.Predictors and outcomes of mental health conditions among patients with colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Cancer, 2024; 56(1):20; doi: 10.1007/s12029-024-01144-1
64.
AktasA, CicekE. Comparison of natural orifice and conventional transabdominal specimen extraction: Literature review. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg, 2023; 8:4.
65.
WrennSM, Cepeda-BenitoA, Ramos-ValadezDI, et al.Patient perceptions and quality of life after colon and rectal surgery: What do patients really want? Dis Colon Rectum, 2018; 61(8):971–978; doi: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000001078
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
