ArticleWorld journal of surgery2017
Transanal Endoscopic Operation Versus Conventional Transanal Excision for Rectal Tumors: Case-Matched Study with Propensity Score Matching.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of the transanal surgical techniques for local excision of rectal tumors: a network meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Pooled it
- Minimally invasive transanal excision for rectal tumors: technical feasibility compared to conventional approach.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- Review
- An evaluation of trans-anal rectoscopic-assisted minimally invasive surgery (ARAMIS): a new platform for transanal surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsAlthough transanal endoscopic surgery is practiced worldwide, there is no consensus on comparative outcomes between transanal endoscopic operation (TEO) and transanal excision (TAE). In this study, we reviewed our experiences with these techniques and compared patients who underwent TEO and TAE using propensity score matching (PSM).
methodsA total of 207 patients underwent local rectal tumor excision between January 2008 and November 2015. To overcome selection bias, we used PSM to achieve a one-to-one TEO: TAE ratio. We included baseline characteristics, age, sex, surgeon, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor location (clockwise direction), involved circumference quadrants, tumor size, and pathology.
resultsAfter PSM, 72 patients were included in each group. The tumor distance from the anal verge was higher in the TEO group (8.0 [5-10] vs. TAE: 4.0 [3-5], p < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between the groups (TEO: 8.3% vs. TAE: 11.1%, p = 0.39). TEO was associated with a shorter hospital stay (3.01 vs. 4.68 days, p = 0.001), higher negative margin rate (95.8 vs. 86.1%, p = 0.039), and non-fragmented specimen rate vs. TAE (98.6 vs. 90.3%, p = 0.029).
conclusionsTEO was more beneficial for patients with higher rectal tumors. Regardless of tumor location, involved circumference quadrants, and tumor size, TEO may more effectively achieve negative resection margins and non-fragmented specimens. Consequently, although local excision method according to tumor distance may be important, TEO will become the standard for rectal tumors.
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.