François Letarte1, Sébastien Drolet1, Anne-Sophie Laliberté1, Philippe Bouchard1, Alexandre Bouchard1. 1. From the Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Que. (Letarte, Drolet, Laliberté, Lebrun, P. Bouchard, A. Bouchard); and the Department of Colorectal Surgery, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec – Hôpital Saint-François d’Assise, Québec, Que. (Drolet, P. Bouchard, A. Bouchard).
Abstract
Background: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery has become the standard of treatment for rectal villous adenomas. However, the role of preoperative imaging for these lesions is not clear. The aim of this study was to compare the value of preoperative imaging and surgeon clinical staging in the preoperative evaluation of patients with rectal villous adenomas having transanal endoscopic microsurgery resection. Methods: We conducted a single-centre comparative retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery surgery for rectal villous adenomas from 2011 to 2013. The intervention was preoperative imaging versus surgeon clinical staging. The primary outcome was the accuracy of clinical staging by preoperative imaging and surgeon clinical staging according to the histopathologic staging. Results: A total of 146 patients underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery surgery for rectal villous adenomas. One hundred and twelve (76.7%) of those patients had no preoperative imaging while 34 patients (23.3%) had either endorectal ultrasound (22 patients) or magnetic resonance imaging (12 patients). Surgeon staging was accurate in 89.3% of cases whereas staging by endorectal ultrasound was accurate in 40.9% cases and magnetic resonance imaging was accurate in 0% of cases. In the imaging group, inaccurate staging would have led to unnecessary radical surgery in 44.0% of patients. Conclusion: This study was subject to selection bias because of its retrospective nature and the limited number of patients with imaging. Patients with rectal villous tumours without invasive carcinoma on biopsies and without malignant characteristics on appearance in the judgment of an experienced colorectal surgeon might not benefit from preoperative imaging before undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery procedures.
Background: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery has become the standard of treatment for rectal villous adenomas. However, the role of preoperative imaging for these lesions is not clear. The aim of this study was to compare the value of preoperative imaging and surgeon clinical staging in the preoperative evaluation of patients with rectal villous adenomas having transanal endoscopic microsurgery resection. Methods: We conducted a single-centre comparative retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery surgery for rectal villous adenomas from 2011 to 2013. The intervention was preoperative imaging versus surgeon clinical staging. The primary outcome was the accuracy of clinical staging by preoperative imaging and surgeon clinical staging according to the histopathologic staging. Results: A total of 146 patients underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery surgery for rectal villous adenomas. One hundred and twelve (76.7%) of those patients had no preoperative imaging while 34 patients (23.3%) had either endorectal ultrasound (22 patients) or magnetic resonance imaging (12 patients). Surgeon staging was accurate in 89.3% of cases whereas staging by endorectal ultrasound was accurate in 40.9% cases and magnetic resonance imaging was accurate in 0% of cases. In the imaging group, inaccurate staging would have led to unnecessary radical surgery in 44.0% of patients. Conclusion: This study was subject to selection bias because of its retrospective nature and the limited number of patients with imaging. Patients with rectal villous tumours without invasive carcinoma on biopsies and without malignant characteristics on appearance in the judgment of an experienced colorectal surgeon might not benefit from preoperative imaging before undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery procedures.
Authors: M J Lahaye; S M E Engelen; P J Nelemans; G L Beets; C J H van de Velde; J M A van Engelshoven; R G H Beets-Tan Journal: Semin Ultrasound CT MR Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 1.875
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: C Langer; T Liersch; M Süss; A Siemer; P Markus; B M Ghadimi; L Füzesi; H Becker Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2002-12-14 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: M Guerrieri; M Baldarelli; M Morino; M Trompetto; A Da Rold; I Selmi; M E Allaix; G Lezoche; E Lezoche Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2006-02-07 Impact factor: 4.088
Authors: E W Taylor; H Thompson; G D Oates; N J Dorricott; J Alexander-Williams; M R Keighley Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1981 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Steven J Heitman; Paul E Ronksley; Robert J Hilsden; Braden J Manns; Alaa Rostom; Brenda R Hemmelgarn Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Maria A Gascon; Vicente Aguilella; Tomas Martinez; Luigi Antinolfi; Javier Valencia; Jose M Ramírez Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 2.895