Assessing the safety and outcomes of repeat transanal endoscopic microsurgery.
Adenoma
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:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
received:
12
04
2018
accepted:
11
10
2018
pubmed:
13
2
2019
medline:
14
5
2020
entrez:
13
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is the treatment of choice for benign rectal tumors and select early rectal cancers. This surgical approach has become ubiquitous and surgeons are seeing recurrent lesions after TEM resection. This study aims to outline the safety and outcomes of repeat TEM when compared to primary TEM procedures. At St. Paul's Hospital, demographic, surgical, pathologic, and follow-up data for patients treated by TEM are maintained in a prospectively populated database. Two groups were established for comparison: patients undergoing first TEM procedure (TEM-P) and patients undergoing repeat TEM procedure (TEM-R). Between 2007 and 2017, 669 patients had their first TEM procedure. Over this time frame, 57 of these patients required repeat TEM procedures, including 15 of these patients treated by 3 or more TEMs. Indications for repeat TEM included recurrence (78%), positive margins (15%), and metachronous lesions (7%). There were no differences between the groups in patient age, gender, or tumor histology. Compared to TEM-P, TEM-R had shorter operative times (38 vs. 52 min, p < 0.001), more distal lesions (5 vs. 7 cm, p < 0.004), and smaller lesions (3 vs. 4 cm, p < 0.0003). The TEM-R group had similar length of hospital stay (0.45 vs. 0.56 days, p = 0.65), rates of clear margins on pathology (81% vs. 88%, p = 0.09), and 30-day readmission rates (7% vs. 4%, p = 0.27) when compared to TEM-P group. TEM-R was more likely to be managed without suturing the surgical defect (72% vs. 32%, p < 0.0001). Repeat TEM was associated with similar post-operative complications as primary TEM graded on the Clavien-Dindo classification scale (Grade 1: 5% vs. 5%, Grade 2: 5% vs. 4%, Grade 3: 5% vs. 1%, p = 0.53). No 30-day mortality occurred in either group. The St. Paul's Hospital TEM experience suggests repeat TEM is a safe and feasible procedure with similar outcomes as patients undergoing first TEM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is the treatment of choice for benign rectal tumors and select early rectal cancers. This surgical approach has become ubiquitous and surgeons are seeing recurrent lesions after TEM resection. This study aims to outline the safety and outcomes of repeat TEM when compared to primary TEM procedures.
METHODS
At St. Paul's Hospital, demographic, surgical, pathologic, and follow-up data for patients treated by TEM are maintained in a prospectively populated database. Two groups were established for comparison: patients undergoing first TEM procedure (TEM-P) and patients undergoing repeat TEM procedure (TEM-R).
RESULTS
Between 2007 and 2017, 669 patients had their first TEM procedure. Over this time frame, 57 of these patients required repeat TEM procedures, including 15 of these patients treated by 3 or more TEMs. Indications for repeat TEM included recurrence (78%), positive margins (15%), and metachronous lesions (7%). There were no differences between the groups in patient age, gender, or tumor histology. Compared to TEM-P, TEM-R had shorter operative times (38 vs. 52 min, p < 0.001), more distal lesions (5 vs. 7 cm, p < 0.004), and smaller lesions (3 vs. 4 cm, p < 0.0003). The TEM-R group had similar length of hospital stay (0.45 vs. 0.56 days, p = 0.65), rates of clear margins on pathology (81% vs. 88%, p = 0.09), and 30-day readmission rates (7% vs. 4%, p = 0.27) when compared to TEM-P group. TEM-R was more likely to be managed without suturing the surgical defect (72% vs. 32%, p < 0.0001). Repeat TEM was associated with similar post-operative complications as primary TEM graded on the Clavien-Dindo classification scale (Grade 1: 5% vs. 5%, Grade 2: 5% vs. 4%, Grade 3: 5% vs. 1%, p = 0.53). No 30-day mortality occurred in either group.
CONCLUSIONS
The St. Paul's Hospital TEM experience suggests repeat TEM is a safe and feasible procedure with similar outcomes as patients undergoing first TEM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30746573
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6501-9
pii: 10.1007/s00464-018-6501-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1976-1980Références
Lezoche E, Guerrieri M, Paganini A, Feliciotti F, Di Pietrantonj F (1996) Is transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) a valid treatment for rectal tumors? Surg Endosc 7:736–741
doi: 10.1007/BF00193047
Middleton PF, Sutherland LM, Maddern GJ (2005) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 48:270–284
doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-0804-8
pubmed: 15711865
Saclarides TJ (1997) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Surg Clin North Am 1:229–239
doi: 10.1016/S0039-6109(05)70541-7
Winde G, Nottberg H, Keller R, Schmid KW, Bünte H (1996) Surgical cure for early rectal carcinomas (T1). Transanal endoscopic microsurgery vs. anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum 9:969–976
doi: 10.1007/BF02054683
Lezoche G, Baldarelli M, Guerrieri M, Paganini AM, De Sanctis A, Bartolaccis S, Lezoche E (2008) A prospective randomized study with a 5-year minimum followup evaluation of transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant therapy. Surg Endosc 22:352
doi: 10.1007/s00464-007-9596-y
pubmed: 17943364
pmcid: 17943364
Behrouz H, Phang TP, Raval MJ, Brown CJ (2013) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a review. Can J Surg 57:127–138
Buess G, Theiss R, Gunther M, Hutterer F, Pichlmaier H (1985) Endoscopic surgery in the rectum. Endoscopy 17:31–35
doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1018451
pubmed: 3971938
Barendse RM, van den Broek FJC, Dekker E, Bemelman WA, de Graaf EJR, Foceksn P, Reitsma JB (2011) Systematic review of endoscopic mucosal resection versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery for large rectal adenomas. Endoscopy 43:941–955
doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1256765
pubmed: 21971923
Perrotta S, Quarto G, Desiato V, Benassai G, Amato B, Benassai G (2013) TEM in the treatment of recurrent rectal cancer in elderly. BMC Surg 13:S56
doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-13-S2-S56
pubmed: 24267977
pmcid: 3851153
Khoury W, Gilshtein H, Nordkin D, Kluger Y, Duek SD (2013) Repeated transanal endoscopic microsurgery is feasible and safe. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23:216–219
doi: 10.1089/lap.2012.0394
Zhang HW, Han XD, Wang Y, Zhang P, Jin ZM (2012) Anorectal functional outcome after repeated transanal endoscopic microsurgery. World J Gastroenterol 18:5807–5811
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i40.5807
pubmed: 23155324
pmcid: 3484352
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240:205–213
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
pubmed: 15273542
pmcid: 1360123
Guerrieri M, Baldarelli M, Morino M, Trompetto M, Da Rold A, Selmi I, Allaix ME, Lezoche G, Lezoche E (2006) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery in rectal adenomas: experience of six Italian centres. Dig Liver Dis 38:202–207
doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2005.11.014
pubmed: 16461025
Middleton PF, Sutherland LM, Maddern G (2005) Transanal endoscopic micro-surgery: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 48:270–284
doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-0804-8
pubmed: 15711865
Kunitake H, Abbas MA (2012) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal tumors: a review. Perm J 16:45–50
doi: 10.7812/TPP/11-120
pubmed: 22745615
pmcid: 3383161
McCloud JM, Waymont N, Pahwa N, Varghese P, Richards C, Jameson JS, Scott AN (2006) Factors predicting early recurrence after transanal endoscopic microsurgery excision for rectal adenoma. Colorectal Dis 8:581–585
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.01016.x
pubmed: 16919110
Maya A, Vorenberg A, Oviedo M, da Silva G, Wexner SD, Sands D (2013) Learning curve for transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a single-center experience. Surg Endosc 28:1407–1412
doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3341-5
pubmed: 24366188
Barendse RM, Dijkgraaf MG, Rolf UR, Bijnen AB, Consten ECJ, Hoff C, Dekker E, Fockens P, Bemelman WA, De Graaf EJR (2013) Colorectal surgeons’ learning curve of transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Surg Endosc 27:3591–3602
doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-2931-6
pubmed: 23572216
Lee L, Althoff A, Edwards K, Albert MR, Atallah SB, Hunter IA, Hill J, Monson JRT (2018) Outcomes of closed versus open defects after local excision of rectal neoplasms: a multi-institutional matched analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 61:172–178
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000962
pubmed: 29337771
Lemos P, Pinto A, Morais G, Pereira J, Loureiro R, Teixeira S, Nunes CS (2009) Patient satisfaction following day surgery. J Clin Anesth 21:200–205
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2008.08.016
pubmed: 19464614
Sturniolo G, Bonanno L, Lo Schiavo MG, Tonante A, Taranto F, Gagliano E, Sturniolo G (2007) Day surgery as a factor in reducing hospital stay. Chir Italy 59:41–52
Bignell MB, Ramwell A, Evans JR, Dastur N, Simson JNL (2009) Complications of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS): a prospective audit. Colorectal Dis 12:e99–e103
pubmed: 19843114
Kumar A, Coralic J, Kelleher D, Sidani S, Kolli K, Smith L (2013) Complications of transanal endoscopic microsurgery are rare and minor: a single institution’s analysis and comparison to existing data. Dis Colon Rectum 56:295–300
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31827163f7
pubmed: 23392142
Laliberte AS, Lebrun A, Drolet S, Bouchard P, Bouchard A (2014) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery as an outpatient procedure is feasible and safe. Surg Endosc 29:3454–3459
doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4158-1
Brown C, Raval MJ, Phang PT, Karimuddin K (2017) The surgical defect after transanal endoscopic microsurgery: open versus closed management. Surg Endosc 31:1078–1082
doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5067-7
pubmed: 27387173
Ramirez JM, Aguilella V, Arribas D, Martinez M (2002) Transanal-full thickness excision of rectal tumours: should the defect be sutured? a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 4:51–55
doi: 10.1046/j.1463-1318.2002.00293.x
pubmed: 12780656
Morino M, Allaix ME (2013) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: what indications in 2013? Gastroenterol Rep 1:75–84
doi: 10.1093/gastro/got012