ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Assessing the safety and outcomes of repeat transanal endoscopic microsurgery.
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, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should the rectal defect be sutured following TEMS/TAMIS carried out for neoplastic rectal lesions? A meta-analysis.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2020Pooled it
- Prognosis of Patients Over 60 Years Old With Early Rectal Cancer Undergoing Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery - A Single-Center Experience.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is the treatment of choice for benign rectal tumors and select early rectal cancers. This surgical approach has become ubiquitous and surgeons are seeing recurrent lesions after TEM resection. This study aims to outline the safety and outcomes of repeat TEM when compared to primary TEM procedures.
methodsAt St. Paul's Hospital, demographic, surgical, pathologic, and follow-up data for patients treated by TEM are maintained in a prospectively populated database. Two groups were established for comparison: patients undergoing first TEM procedure (TEM-P) and patients undergoing repeat TEM procedure (TEM-R).
resultsBetween 2007 and 2017, 669 patients had their first TEM procedure. Over this time frame, 57 of these patients required repeat TEM procedures, including 15 of these patients treated by 3 or more TEMs. Indications for repeat TEM included recurrence (78%), positive margins (15%), and metachronous lesions (7%). There were no differences between the groups in patient age, gender, or tumor histology. Compared to TEM-P, TEM-R had shorter operative times (38 vs. 52 min, p < 0.001), more distal lesions (5 vs. 7 cm, p < 0.004), and smaller lesions (3 vs. 4 cm, p < 0.0003). The TEM-R group had similar length of hospital stay (0.45 vs. 0.56 days, p = 0.65), rates of clear margins on pathology (81% vs. 88%, p = 0.09), and 30-day readmission rates (7% vs. 4%, p = 0.27) when compared to TEM-P group. TEM-R was more likely to be managed without suturing the surgical defect (72% vs. 32%, p < 0.0001). Repeat TEM was associated with similar post-operative complications as primary TEM graded on the Clavien-Dindo classification scale (Grade 1: 5% vs. 5%, Grade 2: 5% vs. 4%, Grade 3: 5% vs. 1%, p = 0.53). No 30-day mortality occurred in either group.
conclusionsThe St. Paul's Hospital TEM experience suggests repeat TEM is a safe and feasible procedure with similar outcomes as patients undergoing first TEM.
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.