ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023
Feasibility of transanal minimally invasive surgery for total pelvic exenteration for advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on mortality rate following total pelvic exenteration in cancer patients.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of magnifying chromoendoscopy in the assessment of tumor invasion depth in early colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Pooled it
- Short- and mid-term outcomes of transanal/transperineal minimally invasive surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Observational
- Feasibility of transperineal minimal invasive surgery when performing sacrectomy for advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to clarify the efficacy and safety of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for total pelvic exenteration (TPE) in advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies.
methodsUsing a prospectively collected database, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical, surgical, and pathological outcomes of TAMIS for TPE. Surgery was performed between September 2019 and April 2023. The median follow-up period was 22 months (2-45 months).
resultsFifteen consecutive patients were included in this analysis M:F = 14:1 and median (range) age was 63 (36-74). Their diagnoses were as follows: primary rectal cancer (n = 5; 33%), recurrent rectal cancer (n = 4; 27%), primary anorectal cancer (n = 5; 33%), and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 1; 7%). Bladder-sparing TPE was selected for two patients (13%). In nine of 15 patients (60%) the anal sphincter could be successfully preserved, five patients (33%) required combined resection of the internal iliac vessels, and two (13%) required rectus muscle flap reconstruction. The median operative time was 723 min (561-1082), and the median intraoperative blood loss was 195 ml (30-1520). The Clavien-Dindo classifications of the postoperative complications were as follows: grade 0-2 (n = 11; 73%); 3a (n = 3; 20%); 3b (n = 1; 7%); and ≥ 4 (n = 0; 0%). No cases of conversion to laparotomy or mortality were observed. The pathological results demonstrated that R0 was achieved in 14 patients (93%).
conclusionsThe short-term outcomes of this initial experience proved that this novel approach is feasible for TPE, with low blood loss, acceptable postoperative complications, and a satisfactory R0 resection rate.
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.