Suppr超能文献

经肛门内镜显微手术(TEM)的最佳工具是什么?一项针对74例患者的病例对照研究,比较了标准平台和一次性材料。

What is the best tool for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM)? A case-matched study in 74 patients comparing a standard platform and a disposable material.

作者信息

Mege Diane, Bridoux Valérie, Maggiori Léon, Tuech Jean-Jacques, Panis Yves

机构信息

Department of Digestive Surgery, Charles Nicolle Hospital, Rouen, France.

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris VII, 100 Boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France.

出版信息

Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017 Jul;32(7):1041-1045. doi: 10.1007/s00384-016-2733-0. Epub 2016 Dec 24.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is the gold standard for local excision of rectal lesions, but no study exists concerning the best material. The objective was to compare TEM using a disposable material vs a standard platform through a case-matched study.

METHODS

Patients who underwent TEM for rectal neoplasms were identified from prospective databases in two tertiary referral centers and matched according to four criteria (sex, tumor location, size, distance from the anal verge): TEM using a disposable material (GelPoint Applied®; group A) and TEM using a standard TEO® platform (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany; group B).

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients were included and divided into group A (n = 33) and group B (n = 41). Full-thickness resection was less frequent in group A (85%) than B (100%; p = 0.01). Adenocarcinoma was less frequent in group A than B: 27 vs 42% (p = 0.03). No difference was noted regarding median operative time (53 vs 53 min; p = 0.6) and a peritoneal perforation rate (6 vs 20%; p = 0.17). Median length of stay was shorter in group A than B (4 vs 5 days; p < 0.008). No significant difference was noted for major morbidity (12 vs 10%; p = 0.66), R1 resection (21 vs 10%; p = 0.2), and recurrence rates (8 vs 7%; p = 0.62). No difference was noted for rectal stenosis (3 vs 12%; p = 0.22) and transit disorder rates (12 vs 17%; p = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested that TEM can be performed using either a TEO® platform or a disposable material, with similar surgical results. The TEO® platform seems to be superior to obtain full-thickness and R0 resection.

摘要

目的

经肛门内镜显微手术(TEM)是直肠病变局部切除的金标准,但尚无关于最佳材料的研究。目的是通过病例匹配研究比较使用一次性材料与标准平台进行TEM的情况。

方法

从两个三级转诊中心的前瞻性数据库中识别出接受TEM治疗直肠肿瘤的患者,并根据四个标准(性别、肿瘤位置、大小、距肛缘距离)进行匹配:使用一次性材料(GelPoint Applied®;A组)和使用标准TEO®平台(德国图特林根卡尔史托斯公司;B组)进行TEM。

结果

共纳入74例患者,分为A组(n = 33)和B组(n = 41)。A组全层切除的频率(85%)低于B组(100%;p = 0.01)。A组腺癌的频率低于B组:分别为27%和42%(p = 0.03)。中位手术时间(53 vs 53分钟;p = 0.6)和腹膜穿孔率(6% vs 20%;p = 0.17)无差异。A组的中位住院时间短于B组(4天 vs 5天;p < 0.008)。主要并发症(12% vs 10%;p = 0.66)、R1切除(21% vs 10%;p = 0.2)和复发率(8% vs 7%;p = 0.62)无显著差异。直肠狭窄(3% vs 12%;p = 0.22)和排便障碍率(12% vs 17%;p = 0.74)无差异。

结论

我们的研究表明,使用TEO®平台或一次性材料均可进行TEM,手术结果相似。TEO®平台在获得全层和R0切除方面似乎更具优势。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验