Robotic surgery is applied in gastrointestinal surgery for their flexible and safe operation, especially in the narrow space of the pelvic cavity for radical surgery of rectal cancer, which has obvious advantages. Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is a hot surgical technique that has developed rapidly in gastrointestinal surgery in recent years. The integration of robotic surgery and NOSES surgery has pushed minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer to a new level. Robotic NOSES surgery for rectal cancer can be divided into two types based on the different extraction methods: transrectal and transvaginal specimen extraction. The selection and flexibility of surgical procedures are the keys to the standardized, healthy, and orderly development of robotic NOSES for rectal cancer. Based on domestic and foreign literature and guidelines and combined with the team′s practical experience, the authors elaborate on the selection strategy of robotic NOSES for rectal cancer, in order to provide reference for more scientific and safe implementation of robotic NOSES for rectal cancer.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for right colon cancer has been conducted with progressive refinements. To facilitate the standardized implementation of this surgical technique, the adoption of rigorous quality control measures is paramount. The present article outlines the key aspects of quality control for robotic natural orifice specimen extraction right hemicolectomy surgery, encompassing the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases, as well as the training and credentialing requirements for the operating surgeons, with the aim of providing a reference framework to facilitate the safe and reliable implementation and dissemination of this minimally invasive approach for right colon cancer.

Objective:To compare the surgical outcomes of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and robotic-assisted radical resection for rectal cancer.Methods:A retrospective analysis using propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted on 547 patients who had undergone radical resection of rectal cancer at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from June 2018 to March 2024. The study cohort comprised 157 patients in the robotic NOSES group and 390 in the robotic-assisted group. PSM was used in a 1:1 manner to match relevant general clinical preoperative data of the study patients (age, sex, body mass index, preoperative comorbidities, abnormal preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (>6.5 μg/L) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels (>27 kU/L), preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor diameter, tumor distance from the anal margin, and TNM stage), with a clamp value of 0.05. After performing PSM to match the general clinical data of the two groups of patients, 77 patients in each of the robotic NOSES and robotic-assisted groups were included in the analysis. We found no statistically significant difference in preoperative general clinical data between the robot NOSES and robot-assisted groups ( P>0.05). We compared the surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery, postoperative pathological data, and incidence of complications between the robotic NOSES and robot-assisted groups. Results:Compared with the robot-assisted groups. the robot NOSES group had a significantly shorter time to first postoperative passage of flatus (48 [38, 50] hours vs. 56 [50, 60] hours, Z=-7.513, P<0.001), time to taking a liquid diet (60 [54,63] hours vs. 66 [62, 72] hours, Z=-6.303, P<0.001), lower pain scores (3 [3, 4] vs. 4 [4, 5], Z=-5.237, P<0.001), and lower incision infection rates (0 vs. 5 [6.5%], χ 2=5.237, P=0.028) within 24 hours after surgery ( P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative anastomotic complications, or incidence of other complications between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion:Robotic NOSES surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for resecting rectal cancer and postoperative recovery is faster after robotic NOSES than after standard robot-assisted surgery.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for right colon cancer has been conducted with progressive refinements. To facilitate the standardized implementation of this surgical technique, the adoption of rigorous quality control measures is paramount. The present article outlines the key aspects of quality control for robotic natural orifice specimen extraction right hemicolectomy surgery, encompassing the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases, as well as the training and credentialing requirements for the operating surgeons, with the aim of providing a reference framework to facilitate the safe and reliable implementation and dissemination of this minimally invasive approach for right colon cancer.

Objective:To compare the surgical outcomes of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and robotic-assisted radical resection for rectal cancer.Methods:A retrospective analysis using propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted on 547 patients who had undergone radical resection of rectal cancer at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from June 2018 to March 2024. The study cohort comprised 157 patients in the robotic NOSES group and 390 in the robotic-assisted group. PSM was used in a 1:1 manner to match relevant general clinical preoperative data of the study patients (age, sex, body mass index, preoperative comorbidities, abnormal preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (>6.5 μg/L) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels (>27 kU/L), preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor diameter, tumor distance from the anal margin, and TNM stage), with a clamp value of 0.05. After performing PSM to match the general clinical data of the two groups of patients, 77 patients in each of the robotic NOSES and robotic-assisted groups were included in the analysis. We found no statistically significant difference in preoperative general clinical data between the robot NOSES and robot-assisted groups ( P>0.05). We compared the surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery, postoperative pathological data, and incidence of complications between the robotic NOSES and robot-assisted groups. Results:Compared with the robot-assisted groups. the robot NOSES group had a significantly shorter time to first postoperative passage of flatus (48 [38, 50] hours vs. 56 [50, 60] hours, Z=-7.513, P<0.001), time to taking a liquid diet (60 [54,63] hours vs. 66 [62, 72] hours, Z=-6.303, P<0.001), lower pain scores (3 [3, 4] vs. 4 [4, 5], Z=-5.237, P<0.001), and lower incision infection rates (0 vs. 5 [6.5%], χ 2=5.237, P=0.028) within 24 hours after surgery ( P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative anastomotic complications, or incidence of other complications between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion:Robotic NOSES surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for resecting rectal cancer and postoperative recovery is faster after robotic NOSES than after standard robot-assisted surgery.