Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23636523›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2013

TransAnal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) with SILS™ port versus Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM): a comparative experimental study.

Roberto Rimonda, Alberto Arezzo, Simone Arolfo, Alessandro Salvai, Mario Morino

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.5field-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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Lesions.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Robotic Transanal Surgery for Rectal Cancer.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Minimally invasive approaches for transanal surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017
    Review
  16. Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2017
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery: State of the Art.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roberto RimondaDepartment of Surgery, ASLCN1, Mondovì (CN) Hospital, 12084, Mondovi, CN, Italy, roberto@rimonda.it.
Alberto Arezzo
Simone Arolfo
Alessandro Salvai
Mario Morino
University of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransAnal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) has been proposed as an alternative to Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) for resection of benign polyps and early cancers of rectum. Since clinical application has begun in the absence of any experimental validation, we assessed its feasibility and efficacy ex vivo in a pilot study.

methodsIn a dedicated trainer box for transanal procedures, 10 surgeons with no experience in transanal surgery were asked to perform a dissection/suture task using both TAMIS and TEM in randomly allocated order. Surgeons were asked to dissect two identically drawn lesions of ~3 cm in larger diameter. Precision of dissection was assessed using a quantitative photographic method, while the time needed for dissection and suturing was considered a measure of quantitative evaluation. Each participant expressed a subjective opinion regarding difficulty with dissection, difficulty with suturing, vision quality, and conflict between instruments on a scale from 1 to 5.

resultsNo difference was observed between the two techniques regarding the accuracy of dissection as the margin was interrupted along 4.1 % of the circumference in the TEM group compared with 2.48 % in the SILS group (P = 0.271). Dissection and suturing were significantly quicker in the TEM group [04:30 vs. 06:35 min (P = 0.049) and 14:34 versus 19:18 min (P = 0.003)]. In three cases in the SILS group, completing the suture was not considered possible, and the procedures were terminated by TEM. Subjective evaluation revealed a better appreciation of TEM in all proposed comparisons: dissection (2.6 vs. 3.5, P = 0.004), suturing difficulty (3.1 vs. 4.6, P < 0.001), quality of vision (2.3 vs. 2.8, P = 0.18), and instrument conflicts (3.1 vs. 4.0, P = 0.054).

conclusionsIn the ex vivo setting, both techniques were comparable for achieving a good dissection, although TAMIS failed to prove effective in suturing the rectal wall. Moreover, TEM was significantly quicker despite the small groups and was better appreciated by the surgeons.

Indexed as

Models, StructuralColorectal SurgeryDissectionEquipment DesignHumansInternship and ResidencyIntestinal PolypsLearning CurveMicrosurgeryModels, AnatomicNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryOperative TimeRectal NeoplasmsSuture TechniquesTask Performance and AnalysisTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23636523
OpenAlexW2016194841

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.