Surgical cure for early rectal carcinoma and large adenoma: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (using ultrasound or electrosurgery) compared to conventional local and radical resection

ArticleinInternational Journal of Colorectal Disease 18(3):222-9 · June 2003with13 Reads
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-002-0441-4 · Source: PubMed
The minimally invasive technique of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) combines the benefits of local resections, a low complication rate and high patient comfort, with low recurrence rate and excellent survival rate after radical surgery (RS). The use of an ultrasonically activated scalpel rather than electrosurgery further improves the results of TEM. A retrospective study was performed of 182 operations on 162 patients with early rectal carcinoma (pT1, G1/2) or adenoma to compare the outcome following four different kinds of surgical resection techniques: RS (anterior or abdominoperineal resection; n=27), conventional transanal resection using Park's retractor (TP; n=76), transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with electrosurgery (TEM-ES; n=45), and TEM with UltraCision (TEM-UC; n=34). One-third of the patients with RS (33%) received either a colostomy or a protective loop-ileostomy. Operation time with TEM-UC was significantly shorter than with TEM-ES or RS. Hospitalization was significantly longer with RS than for TEM or TP. Complication rate with TEM was significantly lower than with RS. Recurrence rate with RS and TEM was significantly lower than with TP, with a trend to TEM-UC being better than TEM-ES. Mortality rate was 3.7% with RS and 0 with TP and TEM. The 2-year survival rate was 96.3% with RS and 100% each with TP and TEM. TEM using UC seems to be the technique of choice. TP leads to an unacceptable recurrence rate, and RS results in a higher incidence of complication and impairment of life quality.
    • "An en bloc resection was performed in all patients in the TEM group, while fragmented specimens were obtained in 9 % of patients after transanal excision. A randomized controlled trial, six comparative nonrandomized studies [14,161718192021 and three systematic reviews and meta-analyses222324 have assessed shortterm and long-term oncologic outcomes in T1 rectal cancer patients treated by TEM or rectal resection with TME. Significantly lower morbidity (8.2 vs. 47.2 %; P = 0.01) and mortality (0 vs. 3.68 %; P = 0.01) rates and shorter hospital stay were reported after TEM than TME [22] (Table 1). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: The last three decades have witnessed significant improvements in the diagnosis, staging and treatment of rectal cancer leading to a more tailored approach. One of the most clinically relevant advances in this field is represented by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Several studies have investigated its role in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, evidence-based recommendations are limited. The aim of this report is to provide an evidence-based review of current indications, controversies and future perspectives of TEM in the management of rectal cancer. Methods: A review of the literature has been performed in PubMed/Medline electronic databases and the Cochrane Library. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to the GRADE system. Results: TEM allows to perform a more accurate en bloc full-thickness local excision of rectal tumors than transanal excision. TEM alone seems to provide similar oncologic results in selected T1sm1 N0 rectal cancers to those achieved by rectal resection and total mesorectal excision (TME), without impairing anorectal function. The oncologic outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy followed by TEM for selected T2 N0 rectal cancers are promising, but this approach is still under evaluation. A word of caution comes from the increased rate of suture dehiscence and rectal pain after TEM. TEM is a promising tool for the surgical treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer as a platform for transanal TME. Conclusions: Selected T1 rectal cancers with favorable features may be effectively treated with TEM without jeopardizing long-term oncologic outcomes. The lack of adequate lymphadenectomy represents the main concern of this approach for the treatment of rectal cancer. Several approaches are under evaluation to overcome this limitation.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2016
    • "The current study also showed that the postoperative local recurrence rate for TME was lower than that for TEM. Numerous studies have shown that the postoperative local recurrence rate following TEM for pT1 rectal cancer is in the range of 4% to 24%9101112131415202122, whereas that following TME is in the range of 0% to 7%9101112131415 23]. According to recent long-term follow-up studies, the postoperative recurrence rate following TEM for the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer was higher than expected, and similar results were reported in the meta-analysis from Wu [24]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer has attracted attention due to its advantages of reduced surgical trauma, fewer complications, low operative mortality, rapid postoperative recovery and short hospital stay. However, there are still significant controversies regarding TEM for the treatment of rectal cancer, mainly related to the prognosis associated with this method. Objective: This study sought to compare the efficacy of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and total mesorectal excision (TME) for the treatment of T1 rectal cancer. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and CNKI databases. Based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews, we screened the trials, evaluated the quality and extracted the data. Results: One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and six non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included in the meta-analysis (a total of 860 rectal cancer patients were included; 303 patients were treated with TEM, and 557 patients were treated with TME). Analysis revealed that all seven studies reported local recurrence rates, and there was a significant difference between the TEM and TME groups [odds ratio (OR) = 4.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) (2.03, 10.53), P = 0.0003]. A total of five studies reported distant metastasis rates, and there was no significant difference between the TEM and TME groups [OR = 0.74, 95%CI (0.32, 1.72), P = 0.49]. A total of six studies reported postoperative overall survival of the patients, and there was no significant difference between the TEM and TME groups [OR = 0.87, 95%CI(0.55, 1.38), P = 0.55]. In addition, two studies reported the postoperative disease-free survival rates of patients, and there was no significant difference between the TEM and TME groups [OR = 1.12, 95%CI (0.31, 4.12), P = 0.86]. Conclusions: For patients with T1 rectal cancer, the distant metastasis, overall survival and disease-free survival rates did not differ between the TEM and TME groups, although the local recurrence rate after TEM was higher than that after TME.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2015
    • "Local recurrence rate was 6.1 % after TEM and 28.7 % after TE (p \ 0.001). Langer et al. [127] compared outcomes of 162 patients with rectal adenomas or ''low-risk'' T1 tumours after radical surgery, TE and TEM. A total of 40 patients had a T1 rectal cancer: 20 patients underwent TE and 20 had a TEM. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: The last 30 years have witnessed a significant increase in the diagnosis of early-stage rectal cancer and the development of new strategies to reduce the treatment-related morbidity. Currently, there is no consensus on the definition of early rectal cancer (ERC), and the best management of ERC has not been yet defined. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery in collaboration with the European Society of Coloproctology developed this consensus conference to provide recommendations on ERC diagnosis, staging and treatment based on the available evidence. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of experts selected on their clinical and scientific expertise was invited to critically review the literature and to formulate evidence-based recommendations by the Delphi method. Recommendations were discussed at the plenary session of the 14th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Paris, 26 June 2014, and then posted on the EAES website for open discussion. Results: Tumour biopsy has a low accuracy. Digital rectal examination plays a key role in the pre-operative work-up. Magnification chromoendoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are complementary staging modalities. Endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery are the two established approaches for local excision (LE) of selected ERC. The role of all organ-sparing approaches including neoadjuvant therapies followed by LE should be formally assessed by randomized controlled trials. Rectal resection and total mesorectal excision is indicated in the presence of unfavourable features at the pathological evaluation of the LE specimen. The laparoscopic approach has better short-term outcomes and similar oncologic results when compared with open surgery. Conclusions: The management of ERC should always be based on a multidisciplinary approach, aiming to increase the rate of organ-preserving procedures without jeopardizing survival.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015
Show more

People who read this publication also read