BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the indications and outcome for transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) used to manage rectal carcinoid tumor as compared with those of conventional transanal local resection (TAR). METHODS: The retrospective study subjects were 28 patients with rectal carcinoid tumor treated by TES (n = 17) or TAR (n = 11) between January 1995 and December 2001. Patient and tumor characteristics, operative results, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The distance from the anal verge to the distal tumor margin in the TES group (range, 4-12 cm; median, 6.8 cm) was significantly greater than in the TAR group (range, 3-6 cm; median, 4.5 cm) (p = 0.001). The median tumor diameter was 5.5 mm (range, 3-11 mm) in the TES group and 5.0 mm (range, 3-8 mm) in the TAR group, showing no statistical difference. Microscopically, resected specimens in both groups were typical carcinoid tumors restricted to the submucosal layer. No recurrence was noted in either group. CONCLUSION: Whereas TES is useful for patients with small rectal carcinoid tumor of typical histology within the submucosal layer in the upper and middle rectum, TAR is effective for accessing the lower rectum.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the indications and outcome for transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) used to manage rectal carcinoid tumor as compared with those of conventional transanal local resection (TAR). METHODS: The retrospective study subjects were 28 patients with rectal carcinoid tumor treated by TES (n = 17) or TAR (n = 11) between January 1995 and December 2001. Patient and tumor characteristics, operative results, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The distance from the anal verge to the distal tumor margin in the TES group (range, 4-12 cm; median, 6.8 cm) was significantly greater than in the TAR group (range, 3-6 cm; median, 4.5 cm) (p = 0.001). The median tumor diameter was 5.5 mm (range, 3-11 mm) in the TES group and 5.0 mm (range, 3-8 mm) in the TAR group, showing no statistical difference. Microscopically, resected specimens in both groups were typical carcinoid tumors restricted to the submucosal layer. No recurrence was noted in either group. CONCLUSION: Whereas TES is useful for patients with small rectal carcinoid tumor of typical histology within the submucosal layer in the upper and middle rectum, TAR is effective for accessing the lower rectum.
Authors: Sang Nam Yoon; Chang Sik Yu; Ui Sup Shin; Chan Wook Kim; Seok-Byung Lim; Jin Cheon Kim Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 2.571