Jonathan Ramkumar1, Ahmer A Karimuddin1,2, P Terry Phang1,2, Manoj J Raval1,2, Carl J Brown3,4. 1. Division of General Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 2. Department of Surgery, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 3. Division of General Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. cbrown@providencehealth.bc.ca. 4. Department of Surgery, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada. cbrown@providencehealth.bc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients treated by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), breach of the peritoneal cavity is a feared intraoperative challenge. Our aim is to analyze predictors and short-term outcomes of patients with peritoneal perforation (TEM-P) when compared to similar patients with no peritoneal compromise (TEM-N). METHODS: At St. Paul's Hospital, demographic, surgical, pathologic, and follow-up data for all patients treated by TEM is maintained in a prospectively populated database. A retrospective review was performed and two groups were established for comparison: TEM-P and TEM-N. Statistical analysis was performed using student's t or chi-squared test, where appropriate. RESULTS: Of 619 patients treated by TEM between 2007 and 2016, 39 (6%) patients were in the TEM-P group and 580 (94%) in the TEM-N group. There were no differences between the groups in patient age, gender, histology, or tumor size. Patients who had peritoneal perforations had more proximal lesions (11 vs. 7 cm, p < 0.0001), anterior lesions (56 vs. 43%, p < 0.05), and longer operations (80 vs. 51 min, p < 0.005). While most defects were closed endoluminally, 2 patients with perforation were converted to transabdominal surgery. There was a difference in overall hospital stay with TEM-P patients staying on average 2 days in hospital with fewer patients managed as day surgery (31 vs. 73%, p < 0.0001). There were no mortalities or significant 30-day complications in the TEM-P group and only one patient required readmission. CONCLUSIONS: The St. Paul's Hospital TEM experience suggests patients with peritoneal breach during TEM can be safely managed with outcomes similar to patients without peritoneal entry. Proximal, anterior lesions are at highest risk of peritoneal perforation.
BACKGROUND: In patients treated by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), breach of the peritoneal cavity is a feared intraoperative challenge. Our aim is to analyze predictors and short-term outcomes of patients with peritoneal perforation (TEM-P) when compared to similar patients with no peritoneal compromise (TEM-N). METHODS: At St. Paul's Hospital, demographic, surgical, pathologic, and follow-up data for all patients treated by TEM is maintained in a prospectively populated database. A retrospective review was performed and two groups were established for comparison: TEM-P and TEM-N. Statistical analysis was performed using student's t or chi-squared test, where appropriate. RESULTS: Of 619 patients treated by TEM between 2007 and 2016, 39 (6%) patients were in the TEM-P group and 580 (94%) in the TEM-N group. There were no differences between the groups in patient age, gender, histology, or tumor size. Patients who had peritoneal perforations had more proximal lesions (11 vs. 7 cm, p < 0.0001), anterior lesions (56 vs. 43%, p < 0.05), and longer operations (80 vs. 51 min, p < 0.005). While most defects were closed endoluminally, 2 patients with perforation were converted to transabdominal surgery. There was a difference in overall hospital stay with TEM-Ppatients staying on average 2 days in hospital with fewer patients managed as day surgery (31 vs. 73%, p < 0.0001). There were no mortalities or significant 30-day complications in the TEM-P group and only one patient required readmission. CONCLUSIONS: The St. Paul's Hospital TEM experience suggests patients with peritoneal breach during TEM can be safely managed with outcomes similar to patients without peritoneal entry. Proximal, anterior lesions are at highest risk of peritoneal perforation.
Authors: Eelco J R de Graaf; Pascal G Doornebosch; Geert W M Tetteroo; Han Geldof; Wim C J Hop Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: G Lezoche; M Baldarelli; Mario Guerrieri; A M Paganini; A De Sanctis; S Bartolacci; E Lezoche Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: E J R De Graaf; P G Doornebosch; R A E M Tollenaar; E Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; A C de Boer; F C Bekkering; C J H van de Velde Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-05-31 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Shanglei Liu; Nicolas Contreras; Monika A Krezalek; Mohamed A Abd El Aziz; Amit Merchea; Scott R Kelley; Kevin Behm Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2022-02-17