ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2011
Incidence, treatment and outcome of rectal stenosis following transanal endoscopic microsurgery.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transanal endoscopic surgery for complications of prior rectal surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Trial
- Transanal endoscopic microsurgical submucosal dissection (TEM-ESD) for rectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort study of 145 consecutive cases.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection for anorectal tumor with hemorrhoids close to the dentate line: a multicenter study of Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Study Group.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Local excision by transanal endoscopic surgery.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for upper rectal tumors.Surgical endoscopy · 2014Article
- The outcome of local excision of large rectal polyps by transanal endoscopic microsurgery.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs an alternative to more radical abdominal surgery, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) offers a minimally invasive solution for the excision of certain rectal polyps and early-stage rectal tumours. The patient benefits of TEM as compared to radical abdominal surgery are clear; nevertheless, some drawback is possible. The aim of our study was to determine the risk factors, treatment and outcomes of rectal stenosis following TEM.
methodsWe analysed a series of 354 consecutive patients who underwent TEM for benign or malignant rectal tumours between 1997 and 2009. We recorded the maximum histological diameter of the lesion, and whether the lesion was circumferential. Rectal stenosis was defined as a rectal narrowing not allowing passage of a 12 mm sigmoidoscope.
resultsHistological results with a measured specimen diameter were available in 304 of the 354 cases. There were 11 stenoses in total (3.6%), 7 stenoses due to 9 circumferential lesions (78%) and 4 due to lesions with a maximum diameter ≥ 5 cm (3.2%). Two patients presented as emergencies, and the other 9 patients reported symptoms of increased stool frequency at follow-up. Three of the stenoses were associated with recurrent disease. All stenoses were treated by a combination of endoscopic/radiological balloon dilatation or surgically with Hegar's dilators. A median of two procedures were required to treat stenoses until resolution of symptoms.
conclusionsRectal stenosis following TEM excision is rare. It is predictable in patients with circumferential lesions but is rare in patients with non-circumferential lesions with a maximum diameter ≥ 5 cm. It is effectively treated with surgical or balloon dilatation. Most patients require repeated treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.