TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes after transanal endoscopic microsurgery with intraperitoneal anastomosis
AU - Eyvazzadeh, Daniel J.
AU - Lee, Janet T
AU - Madoff, Robert D
AU - Mellgren, Anders F.
AU - Finne, Charles O.
PY - 2014/4/1
Y1 - 2014/4/1
N2 - BACKGROUND: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery has gained increasing popularity as a treatment alternative for early stage rectal neoplasms. With continued advances in technique and experience, more proximal rectal tumors are being surgically managed by using transanal endoscopic microsurgery with an intraperitoneal anastomosis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review the outcomes of patients who have undergone intraperitoneal anastomosis with the use of the transanal endoscopic microsurgery technique. DESIGN: A prospective, single-surgeon database documented 445 consecutive patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery from October 1, 1996 through January 1, 2012. We retrospectively reviewed information from all patients who underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery with an intraperitoneal anastomosis in this prospective database. SETTINGS: All procedures took place in an inpatient hospital setting. PATIENTS: All patients satisfied workup criteria to undergo surgery for rectal neoplasm. INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal neoplasm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Size and pathology of lesion, length of procedure, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, margin status, and complications were the outcomes measured. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients who underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery had definitively documented intraperitoneal entry and anastomosis. Median follow-up was 12 months (range, 0.5111 months). There were no operative mortalities. Procedurerelated complications included urinary retention (11%), fever (11%), and fecal seepage (4%). Four patients (14%) had positive margins on final pathology. One patient (3%) required abdominal exploration for an anastomotic leak but did not require diversion. LIMITATIONS: Although this study analyzes prospectively collected data, it is nonetheless a retrospective analysis that can introduce bias. Because this is a single-center study with a relatively homogenous population, the results may not be generalizable. Our sample size may also be underpowered to detect clinically significant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery with intraperitoneal anastomosis can be safely performed without fecal diversion by experienced surgeons.
AB - BACKGROUND: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery has gained increasing popularity as a treatment alternative for early stage rectal neoplasms. With continued advances in technique and experience, more proximal rectal tumors are being surgically managed by using transanal endoscopic microsurgery with an intraperitoneal anastomosis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review the outcomes of patients who have undergone intraperitoneal anastomosis with the use of the transanal endoscopic microsurgery technique. DESIGN: A prospective, single-surgeon database documented 445 consecutive patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery from October 1, 1996 through January 1, 2012. We retrospectively reviewed information from all patients who underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery with an intraperitoneal anastomosis in this prospective database. SETTINGS: All procedures took place in an inpatient hospital setting. PATIENTS: All patients satisfied workup criteria to undergo surgery for rectal neoplasm. INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal neoplasm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Size and pathology of lesion, length of procedure, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, margin status, and complications were the outcomes measured. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients who underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery had definitively documented intraperitoneal entry and anastomosis. Median follow-up was 12 months (range, 0.5111 months). There were no operative mortalities. Procedurerelated complications included urinary retention (11%), fever (11%), and fecal seepage (4%). Four patients (14%) had positive margins on final pathology. One patient (3%) required abdominal exploration for an anastomotic leak but did not require diversion. LIMITATIONS: Although this study analyzes prospectively collected data, it is nonetheless a retrospective analysis that can introduce bias. Because this is a single-center study with a relatively homogenous population, the results may not be generalizable. Our sample size may also be underpowered to detect clinically significant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery with intraperitoneal anastomosis can be safely performed without fecal diversion by experienced surgeons.
KW - Intraperitoneal
KW - Outcomes
KW - Rectal cancer
KW - Rectal polyp(s)
KW - Transanal endoscopic microsurgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84898720961&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84898720961&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000063
DO - 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000063
M3 - Article
C2 - 24608299
AN - SCOPUS:84898720961
VL - 57
SP - 438
EP - 441
JO - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum
JF - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum
SN - 0012-3706
IS - 4
ER -