Aim: Transanal minimal invasive surgery has been practiced for several years for excision of rectal tumors however there is no standard consensus about its applications. This minimally invasive approach helps in avoiding major rectal resections and its associated risk of mortality and morbidity.The aim of this study is to describe a single center experience with transanal glove port excision of rectal tumors which are not amenable to colonoscopic excision.
Materials And Methods: Between the years 2011 and 2014, 9 patients underwent glove port excision of rectal tumors located within 15 cm from the anal verge. Glove port was constructed using circular anal dilator, standard surgical glove and a wound protector retractor; regular laparoscopic instruments were used. The median follow-up period was for 18 months (range, 9 to 27 mo) and all patients had flexible sigmoidoscopy for follow-up to look for any recurrence of the tumors.
Results: All patients underwent transanal excision of rectal tumors successfully using glove port device and laparoscopic instruments. Full thickness excision of the tumor was performed in all patients and there was no significant postoperative morbidity. The final histology of 6 patients was benign and the remaining 3 patients had malignancy reported in the specimen. During the follow-up period between 12 and 18 months 3 patients had a recurrence of the polyp which was removed endoscopically without the need for any further surgical intervention.
Conclusions: Glove port excision of rectal tumors is a feasible alternative to conventional surgical treatment for large benign rectal tumors.What does this paper add to the literature?This article demonstrates that performing local excision of rectal tumors can be achieved safely at a lower cost using simple platforms that are constructed locally like the glove ports. It also highlights the benefits of using the available laparoscopic kits to perform the procedure while making use of the previously acquired skills.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000421 | DOI Listing |
Tech Coloproctol
January 2025
Université Laval, 10, De l'Espinay St, Quebec City, QC, G1L 3L5, Canada.
Background: Inadequate bowel perfusion is among risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leaks. Perfusion can be assessed with indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG) during colon resections. Possible benefits from its systematic use in high-risk patients with rectal cancer remain inconsistent.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFStrahlenther Onkol
January 2025
Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Background: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision (TME) is a standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPLNs) are often inadequately treated with standard regimens. This study examines the treatment and postoperative outcomes in LARC patients receiving a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for LPLNs during long-course chemoradiotherapy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFDis Colon Rectum
November 2024
Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Background: The watch-and-wait strategy provides an opportunity to pursue non-operative management in rectal cancer patients with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy. The management of those with near complete response remains controversial.
Objective: We assessed the oncologic outcomes of patients managed by watch-and-wait versus total mesorectal excision according to clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy.
Middle East J Dig Dis
October 2024
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Colorectal Research Center, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Background: Low anterior resection (LAR) is the gold standard for curative cancer treatment in the middle and upper rectum. In radically operated patients, the local recurrence rates with total mesorectal excision (TME) after 5 and 10 years was<10%, with 80% in 5 years survival. Anastomotic leakage (AL) affects 4%-20% of patients who underwent LAR.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFColorectal Dis
January 2025
Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Aim: Local excision (LE) for T1 rectal cancer may be recommended in those with low-risk disease, while resection is typically recommended in those with a high risk of luminal recurrence or lymph node metastasis. The aim of this work was to compare survival between resection and LE.
Method: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study set in the Canadian province of Ontario.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!