BACKGROUND: Next to surgical margins, yield of lymph nodes, and length of bowel resected, macroscopic completeness of mesorectal excision may serve as another quality control of total mesorectal excision (TME). In this study, the macroscopic completeness of laparoscopic TME was evaluated. METHODS: A series of 25 patients with rectal cancer were managed laparoscopically (LTME) and included in this study. The pathologic specimens of the LTME group were prospectively examined and matched with a historical group of resection specimens from patients who had undergone open TME (OTME). The two groups were matched for gender and type of resection (low anterior or abdominoperineal resection). Special care was given to the macroscopic judgment concerning the completeness of the mesorectum. RESULTS: A three-grade scoring system showed no differences between the LTME and OTME groups. CONCLUSION: The current study supports the hypothesis that oncologic resection using laparoscopic TME is feasible and adequate.
BACKGROUND: Next to surgical margins, yield of lymph nodes, and length of bowel resected, macroscopic completeness of mesorectal excision may serve as another quality control of total mesorectal excision (TME). In this study, the macroscopic completeness of laparoscopic TME was evaluated. METHODS: A series of 25 patients with rectal cancer were managed laparoscopically (LTME) and included in this study. The pathologic specimens of the LTME group were prospectively examined and matched with a historical group of resection specimens from patients who had undergone open TME (OTME). The two groups were matched for gender and type of resection (low anterior or abdominoperineal resection). Special care was given to the macroscopic judgment concerning the completeness of the mesorectum. RESULTS: A three-grade scoring system showed no differences between the LTME and OTME groups. CONCLUSION: The current study supports the hypothesis that oncologic resection using laparoscopic TME is feasible and adequate.
Authors: E Kapiteijn; C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H Putter; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; L Pahlman; B Glimelius; J H van Krieken; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E Kapiteijn; E K Kranenbarg; W H Steup; C W Taat; H J Rutten; T Wiggers; J H van Krieken; J Hermans; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: Eur J Surg Date: 1999-05
Authors: C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; E Klein Kranenbarg; J Hermans; C J van de Velde; J W Leer; J H van Krieken Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F Köckerling; M A Reymond; C Schneider; C Wittekind; H Scheidbach; J Konradt; L Köhler; E Bärlehner; A Kuthe; H P Bruch; W Hohenberger Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: M A Rodriguez-Bigas; S Maamoun; T K Weber; R B Penetrante; L E Blumenson; N J Petrelli Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: S O Breukink; M F van Driel; J P E N Pierie; C Dobbins; T Wiggers; W J H J Meijerink Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Simone Velthuis; Dorothee H Nieuwenhuis; T Emiel G Ruijter; Miguel A Cuesta; H Jaap Bonjer; Colin Sietses Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-06-28 Impact factor: 4.584