ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2017
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for giant benign rectal tumours: is large size a contraindication?
Article 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 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgical Submucosal Dissection: An Efficient Treatment Option for Giant Superficial Neoplastic Lesions of the Rectum.Visceral medicine · 2022Article
- Timing of recurrences of TEM resected rectal neoplasms is variable as per the surveillance practices of one tertiary care institution.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Predictors of rectal adenoma recurrence following transanal endoscopic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- The outcome of local excision of large rectal polyps by transanal endoscopic microsurgery.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
- Analysis of the therapeutic effect of transanal endoscopic microsurgery on large rectal adenoma.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to look at our early postoperative results, recurrence rates and need for further radical surgery in treating large (> 5 cm) rectal tumours by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).
methodsPatients who underwent TEM for rectal tumours greater than 5 cm were included. Tumour diameter was determined based on fresh specimen measurements. We recorded the demographics, operative details, final pathology, length of hospital stay, complications and recurrence rates.
resultsMean tumour size was 5.9 ± 1.5 cm. 68.4% of tumours (13/19) were in the middle part of the rectum. Three patients (15.8%) developed postoperative complications: two had postoperative bleeding (10.5%), one had wound dehiscence (5.3%). Three patients had involved margins (15.8%). After a median follow up of 25.2 months, there were two recurrences (10.5%). One patient developed rectal cancer 6 years after removal of rectal adenoma.
conclusionTEM is feasible and safe for the treatment of giant benign rectal tumours. It may be an alternative method for proctectomy in selected patients.
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.