ArticleSurgical endoscopy2014
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for upper rectal tumors.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Local Recurrence of Premalignant and Early Malignant Rectal Polyps Treated by TEM-A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Excision of malignant and pre-malignant rectal lesions by transanal endoscopic microsurgery in patients under 50 years of age.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Rectal Cancer following Local Excision of Rectal Adenomas with Low-Grade Dysplasia-A Multicenter Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Is magnetic resonance imaging useful for the management of patients with rectal villous adenoma? A study of 45 consecutive patients treated by transanal endoscopic microsurgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Article
- State of the Art in the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.Gastrointestinal tumors · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompared with traditional rectal resection, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is faster and safer. This retrospective study sought to assess the efficacy of TEM for lesions located in the upper rectum, ≥10 cm from the anal verge.
methodsData from all patients who underwent TEM for rectal lesions ≥10 cm from the anal verge between 2001 and 2010 at two medical centers in Israel were retrospectively analyzed. The study group comprised 96 patients (57 men, 39 women) who underwent 99 TEM procedures. Collected data included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, indications for surgery, operative findings and details, postoperative outcomes, and histopathologic findings. Long-term outcomes including local recurrence (LR) for benign lesions and LR and overall survival (OS) for malignant lesions were calculated. Categorical variables were calculated by frequency tables, and linear variables were represented by averages and standard deviation or median with the spread of variables. Survival and LR analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods.
resultsThe mean tumor distance from the anal verge was 11.3 ± 2 cm and the median tumor size was 2 cm. Early postoperative outcomes were favorable, and no early postoperative mortality was reported. The postoperative morbidity rate was 10%. For long-term outcomes, in the subgroup with benign lesions, after a median follow-up of 8.7 years, the LR rate was 5.1%. In the group with malignant lesions, LR and OS rates were 6.9 and 87%, respectively.
conclusionsTEM for upper rectal lesions is feasible and may be safe in selected cases. Low morbidity rate, shorter operative time and length of stay, no mortality events, and favorable long-term outcomes support the use of TEM for the treatment of lesions in the upper rectum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24519026What 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.