Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28011978›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2017

What is the best tool for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM)? A case-matched study in 74 patients comparing a standard platform and a disposable material.

Diane Mege, Valérie Bridoux, Léon Maggiori, Jean-Jacques Tuech, Yves Panis

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Minimally invasive approaches for transanal surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017
    Review
  9. Review
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Diane MegeDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Charles Nicolle Hospital, Rouen, France.
Valérie BridouxDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Charles Nicolle Hospital, Rouen, France.
Léon MaggioriDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris VII, 100 Boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France.
Jean-Jacques TuechDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Charles Nicolle Hospital, Rouen, France.
Yves PanisDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris VII, 100 Boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France. yves.panis@aphp.fr.
Hôpital Beaujon · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rouen · FRInstitute for Research and Innovation in Biomedicine · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTransanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is the gold standard for local excision of rectal lesions, but no study exists concerning the best material. The objective was to compare TEM using a disposable material vs a standard platform through a case-matched study.

methodsPatients who underwent TEM for rectal neoplasms were identified from prospective databases in two tertiary referral centers and matched according to four criteria (sex, tumor location, size, distance from the anal verge): TEM using a disposable material (GelPoint Applied®; group A) and TEM using a standard TEO® platform (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany; group B).

resultsA total of 74 patients were included and divided into group A (n = 33) and group B (n = 41). Full-thickness resection was less frequent in group A (85%) than B (100%; p = 0.01). Adenocarcinoma was less frequent in group A than B: 27 vs 42% (p = 0.03). No difference was noted regarding median operative time (53 vs 53 min; p = 0.6) and a peritoneal perforation rate (6 vs 20%; p = 0.17). Median length of stay was shorter in group A than B (4 vs 5 days; p < 0.008). No significant difference was noted for major morbidity (12 vs 10%; p = 0.66), R1 resection (21 vs 10%; p = 0.2), and recurrence rates (8 vs 7%; p = 0.62). No difference was noted for rectal stenosis (3 vs 12%; p = 0.22) and transit disorder rates (12 vs 17%; p = 0.74).

conclusionsOur study suggested that TEM can be performed using either a TEO® platform or a disposable material, with similar surgical results. The TEO® platform seems to be superior to obtain full-thickness and R0 resection.

Indexed as

Disposable EquipmentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRectal NeoplasmsTransanal Endoscopic MicrosurgeryTreatment OutcomeLocal excisionPeritoneal perforationRectal lesionTransanal endoscopic microsurgery

Identifiers

PMID28011978
OpenAlexW2562151479

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.