Literature DB >> 22023493

Endoscopic mucosal resection vs transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of large rectal adenomas.

R M Barendse1, F J C van den Broek, J van Schooten, W A Bemelman, P Fockens, E J R de Graaf, E Dekker.   

Abstract

AIM: Large (> 2 cm) rectal adenomas are currently treated by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). The potential lower morbidity of EMR becomes irrelevant if it is less effective. We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of EMR and TEM for large rectal adenomas.
METHOD: Data from patients undergoing TEM or EMR for a rectal adenoma > 2 cm in eight hospitals were retrospectively collected. Patient- and procedure-related characteristics, complications and recurrences were recorded. As EMR may require several attempts to achieve complete resection, early (after a single intervention) and late (permitting re-treatment for residual adenoma within 6 months) recurrence rates were determined.
RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-two (292) patients (49% male; mean age 67 years) were included; 219 were treated by TEM and 73 by EMR. Adenomas treated by EMR were smaller (median 30 vs 40 mm; P = 0.007). Perioperative complication rates were 2% for TEM and 6% for EMR (P = 0.171). Postoperative complications occurred in 24% of TEM patients and in 13% of EMR patients (P = 0.038). Median hospitalization after TEM was 3 days vs 0 days after EMR (P < 0.001). Median follow-up was 12.6 months (0-47 months); Early recurrence rates were 10.2% in TEM patients and 31.0% in EMR patients (P < 0.001); late recurrence rates were 9.6% and 13.8%, respectively (P = 0.386).
CONCLUSION: After a single intervention, EMR of large rectal adenomas seems less effective, but safer than TEM. When allowing re-treatment of residual adenoma within 6 months, EMR and TEM seem equally effective. A prospective randomized comparison seems to be necessary.
© 2011 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2011 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22023493     DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02863.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 1462-8910            Impact factor:   3.788


  14 in total

1.  A new technique of totally laparoscopic resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) for large rectal adenoma.

Authors:  X-M Zhang; Z Wang; H-R Hou; Z-X Zhou
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 3.781

2.  TEMS: results of a specialist centre.

Authors:  S M Flexer; A C Durham-Hall; M A Steward; J M Robinson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-01-11       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for giant polyps of the rectum.

Authors:  K Levic; O Bulut; P Hesselfeldt
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 3.781

4.  British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Matthew D Rutter; Amit Chattree; Jamie A Barbour; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Pradeep Bhandari; Brian P Saunders; Andrew M Veitch; John Anderson; Bjorn J Rembacken; Maurice B Loughrey; Rupert Pullan; William V Garrett; Gethin Lewis; Sunil Dolwani
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Transanal single-port microsurgery for rectal tumors: minimal invasive surgery under spinal anesthesia.

Authors:  Taek-Gu Lee; Sang-Jeon Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for giant benign rectal tumours: is large size a contraindication?

Authors:  Audrius Dulskas; Alfredas Kilius; Kestutis Petrulis; Narimantas E Samalavicius
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-09-30       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 7.  Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection from a Western perspective: Today's promises and future challenges.

Authors:  José Carlos Marín-Gabriel; Gloria Fernández-Esparrach; José Díaz-Tasende; Alberto Herreros de Tejada
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-01-25

8.  The risk of lymph node metastasis makes it unsafe to expand the conventional indications for endoscopic treatment of T1 colorectal cancer: A retrospective study of 428 patients.

Authors:  Bun Kim; Eun Hye Kim; Soo Jung Park; Jae Hee Cheon; Tae Il Kim; Won Ho Kim; Hoguen Kim; Sung Pil Hong
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.889

9.  Approach to rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Terence C Chua; Chanel H Chong; Winston Liauw; David L Morris
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-06-25

10.  Cost comparison between endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumors.

Authors:  Myung Jin Nam; Dae Kyung Sohn; Chang Won Hong; Kyung Su Han; Byung Chang Kim; Hee Jin Chang; Sung Chan Park; Jae Hwan Oh
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 1.859

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.