Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Techniques in Coloproctology
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 12/2017

01-12-2017 | Review

Should the rectal defect be closed following transanal local excision of rectal tumors? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: B. Menahem, A. Alves, R. Morello, J. Lubrano

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 12/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Transanal local excision (TLE) has become the treatment of choice for benign and early-stage selected malignant tumors. However, closure of the rectal wall defect remains a controversial point and the available literature still remains unclear. Our aim was to determine through a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of relevant studies whether or not the wall defect following TLE of rectal tumors should be closed.

Methods

Medline and the Cochrane Trials Register were searched for trials published up to December 2016 comparing open versus closed management of the surgical rectal defect after TLE of rectal tumors. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0.

Results

Four studies were analyzed, yielding 489 patients (317 in the closed group and 182 in the open group). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the closed and open groups regarding the overall morbidity rate (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.32–4.91; p = 0.74), postoperative local infection rate (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.23–1.62; p = 0.33), postoperative bleeding rate (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.29–1.77; p = 0.63), and postoperative reintervention rate (OR 2.21; 95% CI 0.52–9.47; p = 0.29).

Conclusions

This review and meta-analysis suggest that there is no difference between closure or non-closure of wall defects after TLE.
Literature
1.
Lakkis Z, Manceau G, Bridoux V et al (2017) French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery (GRECCAR) and the French National Society of Coloproctology (SNFCP). Management of rectal cancer: the 2016 French guidelines. Colorectal Dis 19:115–122CrossRefPubMed
2.
Monson JR, Weiser MR, Buie WD et al (2013) Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon Rectum 56:535–550CrossRefPubMed
3.
Bryant CLC, Lunniss PJ, Knowles CH, Thaha MA, Chan CLH (2012) Anterior resection syndrome. Lancet Oncol 13:403–408CrossRef
4.
Abdelli A, Tillou X, Alves A, Menahem B (2017) Genito-urinary sequelae after carcinological rectal resection: what to tell patients in 2017. J Visc Surg. 154:93CrossRefPubMed
5.
Morino M, Risio M, Bach S, European Society of Coloproctology et al (2015) Early rectal cancer: the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) clinical consensus conference. Surg Endosc 29(4):755–773CrossRefPubMed
6.
Bosch SL, Teerenstra S, de Wilt JH, Cunningham C, Nagtegaal ID (2013) Predicting lymph node metastasis in pT1 colorectal cancer: a systematic review of risk factors providing rationale for therapy decisions. Endoscopy 45:827–834CrossRefPubMed
7.
Lartigau C, Lebreton G, Alves A (2013) Local resection for small rectal cancer. J Visc Surg 150:325–331CrossRefPubMed
8.
Moore JS, Cataldo PA, Osler T, Hyman NH (2008) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery is more effective than traditional transanal excision for resection of rectal masses. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1026–1030CrossRefPubMed
9.
Clancy C, Burke JP, Albert M, O’Connell PR, Winter D (2015) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus standard transanal excision for the removal of rectal neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 58:254–261CrossRefPubMed
10.
Christoforidis D, Cho HM, Dixon MR, Mellgren AF, Madoff RD, Finne CO (2009) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus conventional transanal excision for patients with early rectal cancers. Ann Surg 249:776–782CrossRefPubMed
11.
Martin-Perez B, Andrade-Ribeiro GD, Hunter L, Atallah S (2014) A systematic review of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) from 2010 to 2013. Tech Coloproctol 18:775–788CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Lawrence MA, Goldberg SM (1989) Local excision for selected colorectal carcinomas. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol 3:727–737CrossRefPubMed
14.
Buess G, Mentges B, Manncke K, Starlinger M, Becker HD (1992) Technique and results of transanal endoscopic microsurgery in early rectal cancer. Am J Surg 163:63–69CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Ramirez JM, Aguilella V, Arribas D, Martinez M (2002) Transanal full-thickness excision of rectal tumours: should the defect be sutured? A randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 4:51–55CrossRefPubMed
17.
Noura S, Ohue M, Miyoshi N, Yasui M (2016) Significance of defect closure following transanal local full-thickness excision of rectal malignant tumors. Mol Clin Oncol 5:449–454CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Hahnloser D, Cantero R, Salgado G, Dindo D, Rega D, Delrio P (2015) Transanal minimal invasive surgery for rectal lesions: Should the defect be closed? Colorectal Dis 17:397–402CrossRefPubMed
19.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Jadad A, Moore R, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12CrossRefPubMed
21.
Barendse RM, Doornebosch PG, Bemelman WA, Fockens P, Dekker E, de Graaf EJ (2012) Transanal employment of single access ports is feasible for rectal surgery. Ann Surg 256:1030–1033CrossRefPubMed
22.
Albert MR, Atallah SB, deBeche-Adams TC, Izfar S, Larach SW (2013) Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for local excision of benign neoplasms and early-stage rectal cancer: efficacy and outcomes in the first 50 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 56:301–307CrossRefPubMed
23.
Lim SB, Seo SI, Lee JL et al (2012) Feasibility of transanal minimally invasive surgery for mid-rectal lesions. Surg Endosc 26:3127–3132CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Van den Boezem PB, Kruyt PM, Stommel MW, Tobon Morales R, Cuesta MA, Sietses C (2011) Transanal single-port surgery for the resection of large polyps. Dig Surg 28:412–416CrossRefPubMed
26.
Gorgun IE, Aytac E, Costedio MM, Erem HH, Valente MA, Stocchi L (2014) Transanal endoscopic surgery using a single access port: a practical tool in the surgeon’s toybox. Surg Endosc 28:1034–1038CrossRefPubMed
27.
Hompes R, Rauh SM, Ris F, Tuynman JB, Mortensen NJ (2014) Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery for local excision of rectal neoplasms. Br J Surg 101:578–581CrossRefPubMed
28.
McLemore EC, Weston LA, Coker AM et al (2014) Transanal minimally invasive surgery for benign and malignant rectal neoplasia. Am J Surg 208:372–381CrossRefPubMed
29.
Kumar AS, Coralic J, Kelleher DC, Sidani S, Kolli K, Smith LE (2013) Complications of transanal endoscopic microsurgery are rare and minor: a single intitution’s analysis and comparing to existing data. Dis Colon Rectum 56:295–300CrossRefPubMed
30.
O’Neill CH, Platz J, Moore JS, Callas PW, Cataldo PA (2017) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early rectal cancer: a single-center experience. Dis Colon Rectum 60:152–160CrossRefPubMed
31.
Restivo A, Zorcolo L, D’Alia G et al (2016) Risk of complications and long-term functional alterations after local excision of rectal tumors with transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Int J Colorectal Dis 31:257–266CrossRefPubMed
32.
Marques CF, Nahas CS, Ribeiro U Jr et al (2016) Postoperative complications in the treatment of rectal neoplasia by transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a prospective study of risk factors and time course. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:833–841CrossRefPubMed
33.
Bignell MB, Ramwell A, Evans JR, Dastur N, Simson JN (2010) Complications of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS): a prospective audit. Colorectal Dis 12:e99–e103PubMed
34.
Kreissler-Haag D, Schuld J, Lindemann W, König J, Hildebrandt U, Schilling M (2008) Complications after transanal endoscopic microsurgical resection correlate with location of rectal neoplasms. Surg Endosc 22:612–616CrossRefPubMed
35.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
37.
Metadata
Title
Should the rectal defect be closed following transanal local excision of rectal tumors? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
B. Menahem
A. Alves
R. Morello
J. Lubrano
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 12/2017
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1714-9

Other articles of this Issue 12/2017

Techniques in Coloproctology 12/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Outcomes of GatekeeperTM prosthesis implantation for the treatment of fecal incontinence: a multicenter observational study

Video Forum

Stereotactic navigation during laparoscopic surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer

Original Article

Surgical management of complicated rectovaginal fistulas and the role of omentoplasty

Review

Magnetic resonance defecography versus clinical examination and fluoroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Correspondence

Sinoscopic treatment of persistent perineal sinus

Editorial

Medium-term adoption trends for laparoscopic, robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) techniques