3.8 Article

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for rectal tumor: The first French single-center experience

Journal

GASTROENTEROLOGIE CLINIQUE ET BIOLOGIQUE
Volume 34, Issue 8-9, Pages 488-493

Publisher

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.gcb.2009.07.040

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. - Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) allows complete local excision of rectal tumor, especially in the middle and upper part of the rectum, and provides an alternative to conventional surgery. This is a report of the first French single-center experience to assess the feasibility and postoperative results for rectal tumor excised by TEM. Methods. - From October 2007 to December 2008, 27 patients underwent TEM for excision of either rectal adenoma (n = 19) or carcinoma (n = 8). The median distance from the anal verge was 60 mm (range: 10-140). Results. - TEM excision was performed in 26/27 patients. Intraoperative technical difficulties were recorded in two patients (peritoneal perforation and gas leakage, respectively). The morbidity rate was 22% (n = 6), including two patients (7%) with major complications (delayed rectal bleeding) requiring readmission to hospital for both, and surgical hemostasis for one. R0 resection rates for adenoma and carcinoma were 84% and 75%, respectively. Immediate salvage surgery was performed in one patient because of a T2R1 carcinoma. At the time of the median follow-up at nine months (range: 2.5-17.5), no patient had experienced a recurrence. Conclusion. - TEM is a safe and effective procedure with low morbidity for local rectal tumor resection. It allows local excision of benign tumors, especially those that are inaccessible to conventional local surgery resection, thereby avoiding radical surgery. In cases of carcinoma, its role in local surgery remains controversial and is yet to be defined. (C) 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available