Peritoneal perforation during transanal endoscopic microsurgery is not associated with significant short-term complications.
Aged
Canada
Female
Humans
Intestinal Perforation
/ complications
Intraoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Male
Middle Aged
Peritoneum
/ surgery
Postoperative Complications
/ diagnosis
Rectal Neoplasms
/ surgery
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery
/ adverse effects
Treatment Outcome
Adenoma
Peritoneal perforation
Rectal cancer
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
11
05
2017
accepted:
06
07
2018
pubmed:
20
7
2018
medline:
28
3
2020
entrez:
20
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In patients treated by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), breach of the peritoneal cavity is a feared intraoperative challenge. Our aim is to analyze predictors and short-term outcomes of patients with peritoneal perforation (TEM-P) when compared to similar patients with no peritoneal compromise (TEM-N). At St. Paul's Hospital, demographic, surgical, pathologic, and follow-up data for all patients treated by TEM is maintained in a prospectively populated database. A retrospective review was performed and two groups were established for comparison: TEM-P and TEM-N. Statistical analysis was performed using student's t or chi-squared test, where appropriate. Of 619 patients treated by TEM between 2007 and 2016, 39 (6%) patients were in the TEM-P group and 580 (94%) in the TEM-N group. There were no differences between the groups in patient age, gender, histology, or tumor size. Patients who had peritoneal perforations had more proximal lesions (11 vs. 7 cm, p < 0.0001), anterior lesions (56 vs. 43%, p < 0.05), and longer operations (80 vs. 51 min, p < 0.005). While most defects were closed endoluminally, 2 patients with perforation were converted to transabdominal surgery. There was a difference in overall hospital stay with TEM-P patients staying on average 2 days in hospital with fewer patients managed as day surgery (31 vs. 73%, p < 0.0001). There were no mortalities or significant 30-day complications in the TEM-P group and only one patient required readmission. The St. Paul's Hospital TEM experience suggests patients with peritoneal breach during TEM can be safely managed with outcomes similar to patients without peritoneal entry. Proximal, anterior lesions are at highest risk of peritoneal perforation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In patients treated by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), breach of the peritoneal cavity is a feared intraoperative challenge. Our aim is to analyze predictors and short-term outcomes of patients with peritoneal perforation (TEM-P) when compared to similar patients with no peritoneal compromise (TEM-N).
METHODS
At St. Paul's Hospital, demographic, surgical, pathologic, and follow-up data for all patients treated by TEM is maintained in a prospectively populated database. A retrospective review was performed and two groups were established for comparison: TEM-P and TEM-N. Statistical analysis was performed using student's t or chi-squared test, where appropriate.
RESULTS
Of 619 patients treated by TEM between 2007 and 2016, 39 (6%) patients were in the TEM-P group and 580 (94%) in the TEM-N group. There were no differences between the groups in patient age, gender, histology, or tumor size. Patients who had peritoneal perforations had more proximal lesions (11 vs. 7 cm, p < 0.0001), anterior lesions (56 vs. 43%, p < 0.05), and longer operations (80 vs. 51 min, p < 0.005). While most defects were closed endoluminally, 2 patients with perforation were converted to transabdominal surgery. There was a difference in overall hospital stay with TEM-P patients staying on average 2 days in hospital with fewer patients managed as day surgery (31 vs. 73%, p < 0.0001). There were no mortalities or significant 30-day complications in the TEM-P group and only one patient required readmission.
CONCLUSIONS
The St. Paul's Hospital TEM experience suggests patients with peritoneal breach during TEM can be safely managed with outcomes similar to patients without peritoneal entry. Proximal, anterior lesions are at highest risk of peritoneal perforation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30022287
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6351-5
pii: 10.1007/s00464-018-6351-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
849-853Références
Endoscopy. 1985 Jan;17(1):31-5
pubmed: 3971938
Surg Endosc. 1998 Dec;12(12):1401-4
pubmed: 9822466
Colorectal Dis. 2006 Sep;8(7):581-5
pubmed: 16919110
Dis Colon Rectum. 2009 Jun;52(6):1107-13
pubmed: 19581854
Surg Endosc. 2008 Feb;22(2):352-8
pubmed: 17943364
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009 Dec;35(12):1280-5
pubmed: 19487099
Colorectal Dis. 2009 Nov;11(9):964-6
pubmed: 19175654
Br J Surg. 1997 Mar;84(3):348-51
pubmed: 9117305
JAMA. 1993 Sep 22-29;270(12):1437-41
pubmed: 8371443
Br J Surg. 1994 Nov;81(11):1635-8
pubmed: 7677820
Dis Colon Rectum. 1996 Oct;39(10 Suppl):S79-84
pubmed: 8831552
Dis Colon Rectum. 2004 Dec;47(12):2080-5
pubmed: 15657658
Surg Endosc. 2013 Oct;27(10):3591-602
pubmed: 23572216
Surg Clin North Am. 1997 Feb;77(1):229-39
pubmed: 9092112
Dis Colon Rectum. 1992 Dec;35(12):1183-91
pubmed: 1473424
Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1994 Oct;2(5):251-4
pubmed: 7866756
Dis Colon Rectum. 2014 Oct;57(10):1176-82
pubmed: 25203373
Surg Endosc. 2016 May;30(5):1816-25
pubmed: 26264697
J Clin Anesth. 2009 May;21(3):200-5
pubmed: 19464614
Surg Endosc. 2014 May;28(5):1407-12
pubmed: 24366188
Surg Endosc. 2013 Jan;27(1):181-8
pubmed: 22717799
J Korean Med Sci. 2008 Dec;23(6):999-1004
pubmed: 19119443
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2003 May;18(3):222-9
pubmed: 12673487
Ann Ital Chir. 2013 Jul-Aug;84(4):441-4
pubmed: 23103718
Dis Colon Rectum. 1996 Sep;39(9):969-76
pubmed: 8797643
Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 Feb;48(2):270-84
pubmed: 15711865
Surg Endosc. 1996 Jul;10(7):736-41
pubmed: 8662430
Can J Surg. 2014 Apr;57(2):127-38
pubmed: 24666451
Surg Endosc. 2017 Mar;31(3):1078-1082
pubmed: 27387173
Am J Surg. 2004 May;187(5):630-4
pubmed: 15135680
Chir Ital. 2007 Jan-Feb;59(1):41-52
pubmed: 17361930
Surg Endosc. 2009 Dec;23(12):2680-3
pubmed: 19172355