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"
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
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
Acknowledgements
References
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)
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
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine