Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20174948›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2010

Survival study of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid resection using transanal endoscopic microsurgery with or without transgastric endoscopic assistance in a swine model.

Patricia Sylla, Dae Kyung Sohn, Sevdenur Cizginer, Yusuf Konuk, Brian G Turner, Denise W Gee, Field F Willingham, Maylee Hsu, Mari Mino-Kenudson, William R Brugge and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Learning Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020
    Review
  6. Evolution of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Evolution of transanal total mesorectal excision according to the IDEAL framework.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2019
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Patricia SyllaDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 15 Parkman Street, WACC 460, Boston, MA 02114, USA. psylla@partners.org
Dae Kyung Sohn
Sevdenur Cizginer
Yusuf Konuk
Brian G Turner
Denise W Gee
Field F Willingham
Maylee Hsu
Mari Mino-Kenudson
William R Brugge
David W Rattner
Massachusetts General Hospital · USHarvard University · USNational Cancer Center · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe feasibility of transanal rectosigmoid resection with transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) was previously demonstrated in a swine nonsurvival model in which transgastric endoscopic assistance also was shown to extend the length of colon mobilized transanally.

methodsA 2-week survival study evaluating transanal endoscopic rectosigmoid resection with stapled colorectal anastomosis was conducted with swine using the transanal approach alone (TEM group, n = 10) or a transanal approach combined with transgastric endoscopic assistance (TEM + TG group, n = 10). Gastrotomies were created using a needleknife and balloon dilation, then closed using prototype T-tags. Outcomes were evaluated and compared between the groups using Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test.

resultsRelative to the TEM group, the average length of rectosigmoid mobilized in the TEM + TG group was 15.6 versus 10.5 cm (p < 0.0005), the length of the resected specimen was 9 versus 6.2 cm (p < 0.0005), and the mean operative time was 254.5 versus 97.5 min (p < 0.0005). Intraoperatively, no organ injury or major bleeding was noted. Two T-tag misfires occurred during gastrotomy closure and four small staple line defects requiring transanal repair including one in the TEM group and three in the TEM + TG group (p = 0.2). Postoperatively, there was no mortality, and the animals gained an average of 3.4 lb. Two major complications (10%) were identified at necropsy in the TEM + TG group including an intraabdominal abscess and an abdominal wall hematoma related to T-tag misfire. Gastrotomy closure sites and colorectal anastomoses were all grossly healed, with adhesions noted in 60 and 70% and microabscesses in 50 and 20% of the gastrotomy sites and colorectal anastomoses, respectively.

conclusionsNatural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for rectosigmoid resection using TEM with or without transgastric endoscopic assistance is feasible and associated with low morbidity in a porcine survival model. Transgastric assistance significantly prolongs the operative time but extends the length of the rectosigmoid mobilized transanally, with a nonsignificant increase in complication rates related to gastrotomy creation.

Indexed as

Anal CanalAnastomosis, SurgicalAnimalsColon, SigmoidGastroscopyMaleMicrosurgeryModels, AnimalProctoscopyRectumSurvival AnalysisSwine

Identifiers

PMID20174948
OpenAlexW2002592420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.