INTRODUCTION: There has been a gradual introduction of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) into UK practice although the uptake remains variable. This study aimed to assess the availability, application and referral pattern of TEM amongst colorectal surgeons. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all consultant members of the Association of Coloproctology. This considered their practice, the availability, application and referral pattern for TEM, and their views on application regarding a selection of rectal tumour scenarios. RESULTS: There were 142 replies representing 116 hospitals and 297 colorectal surgeons. The median catchment area was 280,000 (range 70,000-1,000,000). TEM was available in 18% of hospitals and 72% either performed or referred patents for TEM. Of 21 units performing TEM, 15 received referrals. From 305 TEM procedures performed over the previous year, 206 were referred cases. Eighty-five per cent of consultants considered TEM a necessary technique for optimum management of rectal lesions. Although 61% of consultants considered endoanal excision optimal for low benign rectal tumours, 58% said TEM was optimal for midrectal lesions and between 30% and 55% for high rectal lesions depending if the tumour position was anterior or posterior, respectively. One-third of consultants would perform TEM for a low T1 rectal carcinoma although half would proceed to anterior resection. DISCUSSION: TEM is considered to have a significant role in the optimal management of rectal lesions. The presence of the technique in a limited number of hospitals does appear to provide adequate resources although audit should continue to be centralized.
INTRODUCTION: There has been a gradual introduction of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) into UK practice although the uptake remains variable. This study aimed to assess the availability, application and referral pattern of TEM amongst colorectal surgeons. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all consultant members of the Association of Coloproctology. This considered their practice, the availability, application and referral pattern for TEM, and their views on application regarding a selection of rectal tumour scenarios. RESULTS: There were 142 replies representing 116 hospitals and 297 colorectal surgeons. The median catchment area was 280,000 (range 70,000-1,000,000). TEM was available in 18% of hospitals and 72% either performed or referred patents for TEM. Of 21 units performing TEM, 15 received referrals. From 305 TEM procedures performed over the previous year, 206 were referred cases. Eighty-five per cent of consultants considered TEM a necessary technique for optimum management of rectal lesions. Although 61% of consultants considered endoanal excision optimal for low benign rectal tumours, 58% said TEM was optimal for midrectal lesions and between 30% and 55% for high rectal lesions depending if the tumour position was anterior or posterior, respectively. One-third of consultants would perform TEM for a low T1 rectal carcinoma although half would proceed to anterior resection. DISCUSSION: TEM is considered to have a significant role in the optimal management of rectal lesions. The presence of the technique in a limited number of hospitals does appear to provide adequate resources although audit should continue to be centralized.