scholarly journals Glove Port Technique for Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrara Alessandro ◽  
Mangiola Daniela ◽  
Motter Michele ◽  
Tirone Andrea ◽  
Ghezzi Gianmarco ◽  
...  

Introduction. Despite initial enthusiasm, the use of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is still quite limited at present because of the expense of highly specialized equipment and the complexity of the learning curve. Furthermore, some authors report a relevant, although temporary, effect on anorectal function because of the considerable anal dilatation which can even produce a rupture of the internal anal sphincter. The “glove TEM” proposes itself as an alternative to traditional TEM that could settle these problems.Materials and Methods. The technique is accurately described together with the necessary equipment to perform it. Between 2011 and 2012, we operated eight patients with this technique for rectal adenomas or early carcinomas achieving R0 resection in all cases and reporting no early or late complications during the first five months of followup.Discussion. This technique offers multiple advantages compared to the original TEM. (i) It allows the use of all available laparoscopic instruments. (ii) It gives a great manoeuvrability of the instruments in contrast to rigid rectoscope systems. (iii) Given the limited length of the device, it permits to operate on tumors closer to the dentate line. (iv) It is less traumatic to the anal sphincter. It is definitively much cheaper.Conclusions. We believe that this new technique is easy to perform, cost-effective, and less traumatic to the anal sphincter compared to traditional TEM.

2012 ◽  
Vol 99 (10) ◽  
pp. 1429-1435 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Hompes ◽  
F. Ris ◽  
C. Cunningham ◽  
N. J. Mortensen ◽  
R. A. Cahill

2013 ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
R.M. Barendse ◽  
J.M. Oors ◽  
E.J.R. de Graaf ◽  
W.A. Bemelman ◽  
P. Fockens ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Markus Brand ◽  
Stanislaus Reimer ◽  
Joachim Reibetanz ◽  
Sven Flemming ◽  
Marko Kornmann ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Local treatment of small well-differentiated rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is recommended by current guidelines. However, although several endoscopic methods have been established, the highest R0 rate is achieved by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Since a recently published study about endoscopic full thickness resection (eFTR) showed a R0 resection rate of 100%, the aim of this study was to evaluate both methods (eFTR vs. TEM). Methods We retrospectively analyzed all patients with rectal NET treated either by TEM (1999–2018) or eFTR (2016–2019) in two tertiary centers (University Hospital Wuerzburg and Ulm). We analyzed clinical, procedural, and histopathological outcomes in both groups. Results Twenty-eight patients with rectal NET received local treatment (TEM: 13; eFTR: 15). Most tumors were at stage T1a and grade G1 or G2 (in the TEM group two G3 NETs were staged T2 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy). In both groups, similar outcomes for en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, tumor size, or specimen size were found. No procedural adverse events were noted. Mean procedure time in the TEM group was 48.9 min and 19.2 min in the eFTR group. Conclusion eFTR is a convincing method for local treatment of small rectal NETs combining high safety and efficacy with short interventional time.


Gut ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 837-846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renée M Barendse ◽  
Gijsbert D Musters ◽  
Eelco J R de Graaf ◽  
Frank J C van den Broek ◽  
Esther C J Consten ◽  
...  

ObjectiveNon-randomised studies suggest that endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), but EMR might be more cost-effective and safer. This trial compares the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of TEM and EMR for large rectal adenomas.DesignPatients with rectal adenomas ≥3 cm, without malignant features, were randomised (1:1) to EMR or TEM, allowing endoscopic removal of residual adenoma at 3 months. Unexpected malignancies were excluded postrandomisation. Primary outcomes were recurrence within 24 months (aiming to demonstrate non-inferiority of EMR, upper limit 10%) and the number of recurrence-free days alive and out of hospital.ResultsTwo hundred and four patients were treated in 18 university and community hospitals. Twenty-seven (13%) had unexpected cancer and were excluded from further analysis. Overall recurrence rates were 15% after EMR and 11% after TEM; statistical non-inferiority was not reached. The numbers of recurrence-free days alive and out of hospital were similar (EMR 609±209, TEM 652±188, p=0.16). Complications occurred in 18% (EMR) versus 26% (TEM) (p=0.23), with major complications occurring in 1% (EMR) versus 8% (TEM) (p=0.064). Quality-adjusted life years were equal in both groups. EMR was approximately €3000 cheaper and therefore more cost-effective.ConclusionUnder the statistical assumptions of this study, non-inferiority of EMR could not be demonstrated. However, EMR may have potential as the primary method of choice due to a tendency of lower complication rates and a better cost-effectiveness ratio. The high rate of unexpected cancers should be dealt with in further studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document