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"

other OA: gold CC-BY-NC-4.0
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash+body, 2026-09-23 ⓘ

Jakhro et al. critique Popov et al.'s retrospective comparison of conventional laparoscopic bowel resection versus natural orifice specimen extraction for colorectal endometriosis, citing temporal separation and unadjusted confounders as major methodological limitations.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-23 · read from full text ⓘ

This letter to the editor critiques a comparative study by Popov et al. regarding surgical techniques for colorectal endometriosis, specifically contrasting conventional laparoscopic segmental bowel resection with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction procedures. The authors highlight significant methodological limitations in the original research, including its retrospective design, temporal separation between treatment cohorts, and lack of adjustment for confounding factors such as lesion complexity and prior surgical history. They argue that these issues introduce selection and proficiency biases that may independently affect outcomes rather than reflecting true differences in surgical technique efficacy. Relevance to endometriosis: this paper is centrally about endometriosis — specifically the surgical management of deep infiltrating lesions involving the colorectum.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Full text 5,864 characters · extracted from oa-pdf · 3 sections · click to expand

Keywords

Colorectal endometriosis, natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE), laparoscopic surgery Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2026;18(3):281-282 282 evolution in practice rather than the surgical technique itself. Second, a number of potentially significant confounding factors, such as lesion complexity, disease severity, prior surgical history, and concomitant pelvic involvement, were not taken into account even though baseline data including age, body mass index, and symptom levels were compared. Additionally, neither multivariable regression analysis nor propensity score matching were used to reduce baseline imbalance across groups. Thus, residual confusion is still a possibility.4 Despite these considerations, we commend the authors for their valuable contribution to the growing body of literature on surgical management of colorectal endometriosis. Their study provides important insights into the feasibility and safety of NOSE techniques and highlights an evolving area of minimally invasive surgery. We appreciate the authors’ efforts in addressing this clinically relevant topic and believe their findings will stimulate further research. We concur that larger prospective, multicenter randomized studies are warranted to further clarify the comparative effectiveness and long-term outcomes of these surgical approaches.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable. Contributors: Concept: A.J.J., H.J., A.K., Design: A.J.J., H.J., A.K., Literature Search: A.J.J., H.J., A.K., Writing: A.J.J., H.J., S.H.A. Funding: The authors declared that this study received no financial support. Competing interests: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Informed consent: Not applicable. Data sharing: Not applicable. Transparency: Not applicable.

References

1. Popov A, Mamedova S, Fedorov A, Kliushnikov I, Glebov T, Sopova J, et al. 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 Vis ObGyn. 2026;18:104-12. 2. Mann CJ. Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emerg Med J. 2003;20:54-60. 3. Hopper AN, Jamison MH, Lewis WG. Learning curves in surgical practice. Postgrad Med J. 2007;83:777-9. 4. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399-424.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-pdf ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-09-27T09:11:36.575535+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-09-26T06:09:06.398722+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-09-17T06:32:46.214484+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-4.0 · commercial use OK · attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine