ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Peritoneal perforation during transanal endoscopic microsurgery is not associated with significant short-term complications.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery: a single institutional experience.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- The outcomes of two robotic platforms performing transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal neoplasia: a case series of 21 patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients treated by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), breach of the peritoneal cavity is a feared intraoperative challenge. Our aim is to analyze predictors and short-term outcomes of patients with peritoneal perforation (TEM-P) when compared to similar patients with no peritoneal compromise (TEM-N).
methodsAt St. Paul's Hospital, demographic, surgical, pathologic, and follow-up data for all patients treated by TEM is maintained in a prospectively populated database. A retrospective review was performed and two groups were established for comparison: TEM-P and TEM-N. Statistical analysis was performed using student's t or chi-squared test, where appropriate.
resultsOf 619 patients treated by TEM between 2007 and 2016, 39 (6%) patients were in the TEM-P group and 580 (94%) in the TEM-N group. There were no differences between the groups in patient age, gender, histology, or tumor size. Patients who had peritoneal perforations had more proximal lesions (11 vs. 7 cm, p < 0.0001), anterior lesions (56 vs. 43%, p < 0.05), and longer operations (80 vs. 51 min, p < 0.005). While most defects were closed endoluminally, 2 patients with perforation were converted to transabdominal surgery. There was a difference in overall hospital stay with TEM-P patients staying on average 2 days in hospital with fewer patients managed as day surgery (31 vs. 73%, p < 0.0001). There were no mortalities or significant 30-day complications in the TEM-P group and only one patient required readmission.
conclusionsThe St. Paul's Hospital TEM experience suggests patients with peritoneal breach during TEM can be safely managed with outcomes similar to patients without peritoneal entry. Proximal, anterior lesions are at highest risk of peritoneal perforation.
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.