K Levic1, O Bulut, P Hesselfeldt, S Bülow. 1. Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Hvidovre University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Kettegaards Allé 30, 2650 Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) allows locally complete resection of early rectal cancer as an alternative to conventional radical surgery. In case of unfavourable histology after TEM, or positive resection margins, salvage surgery can be performed. However, it is unclear if the results are equivalent to primary treatment with total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether there is a difference in outcome between patients who underwent early salvage resection with TME after TEM, and those who underwent primary TME for rectal cancer. METHODS: From 1997 to 2011, early salvage surgery with TME after TEM was performed in 25 patients in our institution. These patients were compared with 25 patients who underwent primary TME, matched according to gender, age (±2 years), cancer stage and operative procedure. Data were obtained from the patients' charts and reviewed retrospectively. No patients received preoperative chemotherapy. Perioperative data and oncological outcome were analysed. The Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the results between the two groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in median operating time (P = 0.39), median blood loss (P = 0.19) or intraoperative complications (P = 1.00). The 30-day mortality was 8 % (n = 2) among patients who underwent salvage TME after TEM, and no patients died in the primary TME group (P = 0.49). There was no significant difference between two groups of patients in the median number of harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.34), median circumferential resection margin (CRM) (P = 0.99) or the completeness of the mesorectal fascia plane. No local recurrences occurred among the patients with salvage TME, and there were 2 patients (8 %) with local recurrences among the patients with primary TME (P = 0.49). Distant metastasis occurred in one patient (4 %) after salvage TME and in 3 patients (12 %) with primary TME (P = 0.61). The median follow-up time was 25 months (3-126) for patients who underwent salvage TME and 19 months (3-73) for patients after primary TME. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in outcome between patients with rectal cancer undergoing salvage TME after TEM, those undergoing primary TME. In selected patients, TEM can therefore be chosen as a primary treatment, since failure of treatment and subsequent conventional resection appears not to compromise the outcome.
BACKGROUND: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) allows locally complete resection of early rectal cancer as an alternative to conventional radical surgery. In case of unfavourable histology after TEM, or positive resection margins, salvage surgery can be performed. However, it is unclear if the results are equivalent to primary treatment with total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether there is a difference in outcome between patients who underwent early salvage resection with TME after TEM, and those who underwent primary TME for rectal cancer. METHODS: From 1997 to 2011, early salvage surgery with TME after TEM was performed in 25 patients in our institution. These patients were compared with 25 patients who underwent primary TME, matched according to gender, age (±2 years), cancer stage and operative procedure. Data were obtained from the patients' charts and reviewed retrospectively. No patients received preoperative chemotherapy. Perioperative data and oncological outcome were analysed. The Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the results between the two groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in median operating time (P = 0.39), median blood loss (P = 0.19) or intraoperative complications (P = 1.00). The 30-day mortality was 8 % (n = 2) among patients who underwent salvage TME after TEM, and no patients died in the primary TME group (P = 0.49). There was no significant difference between two groups of patients in the median number of harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.34), median circumferential resection margin (CRM) (P = 0.99) or the completeness of the mesorectal fascia plane. No local recurrences occurred among the patients with salvage TME, and there were 2 patients (8 %) with local recurrences among the patients with primary TME (P = 0.49). Distant metastasis occurred in one patient (4 %) after salvage TME and in 3 patients (12 %) with primary TME (P = 0.61). The median follow-up time was 25 months (3-126) for patients who underwent salvage TME and 19 months (3-73) for patients after primary TME. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in outcome between patients with rectal cancer undergoing salvage TME after TEM, those undergoing primary TME. In selected patients, TEM can therefore be chosen as a primary treatment, since failure of treatment and subsequent conventional resection appears not to compromise the outcome.
Authors: Jose M Ramirez; Vicente Aguilella; Javier Valencia; Javier Ortego; Jose A Gracia; Pilar Escudero; Ricardo Esco; Mariano Martinez Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Dieter Hahnloser; Bruce G Wolff; David W Larson; Jennifer Ping; Santhat Nivatvongs Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: A Arezzo; F Bianco; F Agresta; C Coco; R Faletti; Z Krivocapic; G Rotondano; G A Santoro; N Vettoretto; S De Franciscis; A Belli; G M Romano Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Alexandra Koreli; George Briassoulis; Michail Sideris; Anastas Philalithis; Savvas Papagrigoriadis Journal: In Vivo Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.155