Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26264697›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016

Transanal endoscopic resection with peritoneal entry: a word of caution.

George Molina, Liliana Bordeianou, Paul Shellito, Patricia Sylla

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Rectal Trauma: Evidence-Based Practices.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2018
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

George MolinaDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Liliana BordeianouDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Paul ShellitoDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Patricia SyllaDepartment of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, 5 East 98th Street Box 1249, New York, NY, 10029, USA. patricia.sylla@mountsinai.org.
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USMount Sinai Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeritoneal entry during transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) can usually be managed transanally with full-thickness suture closure by experienced operators. The preliminary safety of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) has been demonstrated, but the reported experience with upper rectal tumors is limited. The incidence and management of peritoneal entry during transanal endoscopic surgery across various platforms have not been previously evaluated.

methodsRetrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of all transanal endoscopic resections performed at a single institution between January 2008 and December 2014 was conducted. Cases with and without peritoneal entry were evaluated with respect to transanal platform used, surgical indication, size, location and distance from the anal verge, and incidence of postoperative complications.

resultsA total of 78 transanal endoscopic procedures were performed on 76 patients using the rigid transanal endoscopic operation (TEO, 65.4 %), TEM (26.9 %), and TAMIS platform (7.7 %). The most common surgical indication included endoscopically unresectable adenomas (50 %). The average distance of lesions from the anal verge (AV) was 9.6 cm (range 4-20 cm). Peritoneal entry occurred in 22 cases (28.2 %). Platform used (TAMIS vs. rigid, p < 0.05), mean distance from the AV (p < 0.0001), location along the rectum (p = 0.01), and mean specimen size (p = 0.01) were associated with a higher likelihood of peritoneal entry. All rectal defects associated with peritoneal entry were successfully closed transanally except for two (TEM and TEO) cases that required conversion to laparoscopic low anterior resection and laparoscopic Hartmann's, respectively. There were four TAMIS cases that required conversion to TEO platforms.

conclusionIn this high-risk TEM, TEO, and TAMIS series (one-third of rectal lesions located in the upper rectum), 91 % of all peritoneal entries were managed transanally without increased morbidity. TAMIS for upper rectal lesions was associated with a high risk of complicated peritoneal entry requiring conversion to a rigid platform.

Indexed as

AdenomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPeritoneumPostoperative ComplicationsRectal NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesTransanal Endoscopic MicrosurgeryTreatment OutcomeAdenomasPeritoneal entryRectal cancerTransanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM)Transanal endoscopic resectionTransanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS)

Identifiers

PMID26264697
OpenAlexW1196380389

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.