B Menahem1,2,3, A Alves4,5,6, R Morello4,6,7, J Lubrano4,5,6. 1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Caen University Hospital, Avenue de la Côte de Nacre, 14032, Caen Cedex, France. menahem-b@chu-caen.fr. 2. UMR, French National Institute for Health and Medical Research U1086 Cancer and Prevention, The François Baclesse Center, Caen, France. menahem-b@chu-caen.fr. 3. UFR of Medicine, Caen, France. menahem-b@chu-caen.fr. 4. Department of Digestive Surgery, Caen University Hospital, Avenue de la Côte de Nacre, 14032, Caen Cedex, France. 5. UMR, French National Institute for Health and Medical Research U1086 Cancer and Prevention, The François Baclesse Center, Caen, France. 6. UFR of Medicine, Caen, France. 7. Department of Clinical Research and Biostatistics, Caen University Hospital, Caen, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transanal local excision (TLE) has become the treatment of choice for benign and early-stage selected malignant tumors. However, closure of the rectal wall defect remains a controversial point and the available literature still remains unclear. Our aim was to determine through a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of relevant studies whether or not the wall defect following TLE of rectal tumors should be closed. METHODS: Medline and the Cochrane Trials Register were searched for trials published up to December 2016 comparing open versus closed management of the surgical rectal defect after TLE of rectal tumors. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0. RESULTS: Four studies were analyzed, yielding 489 patients (317 in the closed group and 182 in the open group). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the closed and open groups regarding the overall morbidity rate (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.32-4.91; p = 0.74), postoperative local infection rate (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.23-1.62; p = 0.33), postoperative bleeding rate (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.29-1.77; p = 0.63), and postoperative reintervention rate (OR 2.21; 95% CI 0.52-9.47; p = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: This review and meta-analysis suggest that there is no difference between closure or non-closure of wall defects after TLE.
BACKGROUND: Transanal local excision (TLE) has become the treatment of choice for benign and early-stage selected malignant tumors. However, closure of the rectal wall defect remains a controversial point and the available literature still remains unclear. Our aim was to determine through a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of relevant studies whether or not the wall defect following TLE of rectal tumors should be closed. METHODS: Medline and the Cochrane Trials Register were searched for trials published up to December 2016 comparing open versus closed management of the surgical rectal defect after TLE of rectal tumors. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0. RESULTS: Four studies were analyzed, yielding 489 patients (317 in the closed group and 182 in the open group). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the closed and open groups regarding the overall morbidity rate (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.32-4.91; p = 0.74), postoperative local infection rate (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.23-1.62; p = 0.33), postoperative bleeding rate (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.29-1.77; p = 0.63), and postoperative reintervention rate (OR 2.21; 95% CI 0.52-9.47; p = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: This review and meta-analysis suggest that there is no difference between closure or non-closure of wall defects after TLE.
Entities:
Keywords:
Defect closure; Rectal tumor; Transanal endoscopic microsurgery; Transanal local excision; Transanal minimally invasive surgery
Authors: R O C Araujo; M Valadão; D Borges; E Linhares; J P de Jesus; C G Ferreira; A P Victorino; F M Vieira; R Albagli Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: I E Gorgun; I Emre Gorgun; Erman Aytac; Meagan M Costedio; Hasan H Erem; Michael A Valente; Luca Stocchi Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Angelo Restivo; Luigi Zorcolo; Giuseppe D'Alia; Francesca Cocco; Andrea Cossu; Francesco Scintu; Giuseppe Casula Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-08-23 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Z Lakkis; G Manceau; V Bridoux; A Brouquet; S Kirzin; L Maggiori; C de Chaisemartin; J H Lefevre; Y Panis Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Anjali S Kumar; Jasna Coralic; Deirdre C Kelleher; Shafik Sidani; Kirthi Kolli; Lee E Smith Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Mario Morino; Mauro Risio; Simon Bach; Regina Beets-Tan; Krzysztof Bujko; Yves Panis; Philip Quirke; Bjorn Rembacken; Eric Rullier; Yutaka Saito; Tonia Young-Fadok; Marco Ettore Allaix Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 4.584