ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Peritoneal opening during transanal endoscopic microsurgery: can preoperative positioning assessment improve intraoperative management?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeritoneal opening (PO) during transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) can cause the pneumorectum to collapse and complicate the procedure. As indications expand to larger, more proximal rectal lesions, understanding the real-world frequency, predictors, and consequences of PO is clinically important.
methodsWe analysed a prospectively maintained single-centre database (January 1993-August 2025) of consecutive TEM/TEO resections. The primary exposure was PO; outcomes included abdominal conversion, complications, and length of stay (LOS). Multivariable logistic regression evaluated factors such as distal distance from the anal verge, maximal diameter, excision plane, and simplified lesion location (anterior, posterior, lateral, circumferential). The prone/supine position was examined overall and within the PO subgroup.
resultsOf 1077 resections, PO occurred in 81/1,077 (7.5%). PO was more common with increasing distance from the anal verge: distal edge < 7 cm 2.3% (13/570) versus ≥ 7 cm 13.5% (68/502). Independent predictors included greater distance (OR 1.49 per cm; 95%CI 1.35-1.65; p < 0.001), larger diameter (OR 1.19 per cm; 95%CI 1.03-1.38; p = 0.022), full-thickness compared to submucosal excision (OR 4.03; 95%CI 1.39-11.66; p = 0.010), and circumferential versus anterior location (OR 4.78; 95%CI 1.61-14.19; p = 0.0049). Posterior location was protective (OR 0.26; 95%CI 0.13-0.53; p = 0.0002). Conversion occurred more frequently with PO (6.2%, 5/81) than without (0.1%, 1/992). LOS was longer with PO (median 5 [IQR 4-6] days) compared to without PO (median 4 [3-5] days; p < 0.001). The rate of complications did not differ significantly (any Dindo ≥ 1: 11.1% vs 7.3%; p = 0.19). Position was prone in 560/1,077 (52.2%) and supine in 513/1,077 (47.8%); PO was more common in prone (11.1%) than in supine (3.7%; p < 0.0001). Within the PO group, conversion was higher in the supine position (4/19, 21.1%) versus prone (1/62, 1.6%; p = 0.007), and laparoscopic-only conversions showed a borderline excess in the supine position (2/19 vs 0/62; p = 0.049).
conclusionsPO during TEM/TEO is infrequent, anatomically driven, and usually manageable with secure endoluminal repair. Careful surgical planning-considering distance, orientation, and size-and matching platform/position can reduce risk, with no evident increase in short-term morbidity.
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.