Han Jeonghee, Noh Gyoung Tae, Cheong Chinock, Cho Min Soo, Hur Hyuk, Min Byung Soh, Lee Kang Young, Kim Nam Kyu
Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea.
World J Surg. 2017 Sep;41(9):2387-2394. doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-4017-4.
Although transanal endoscopic surgery is practiced worldwide, there is no consensus on comparative outcomes between transanal endoscopic operation (TEO) and transanal excision (TAE). In this study, we reviewed our experiences with these techniques and compared patients who underwent TEO and TAE using propensity score matching (PSM).
A total of 207 patients underwent local rectal tumor excision between January 2008 and November 2015. To overcome selection bias, we used PSM to achieve a one-to-one TEO: TAE ratio. We included baseline characteristics, age, sex, surgeon, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor location (clockwise direction), involved circumference quadrants, tumor size, and pathology.
After PSM, 72 patients were included in each group. The tumor distance from the anal verge was higher in the TEO group (8.0 [5-10] vs. TAE: 4.0 [3-5], p < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between the groups (TEO: 8.3% vs. TAE: 11.1%, p = 0.39). TEO was associated with a shorter hospital stay (3.01 vs. 4.68 days, p = 0.001), higher negative margin rate (95.8 vs. 86.1%, p = 0.039), and non-fragmented specimen rate vs. TAE (98.6 vs. 90.3%, p = 0.029).
TEO was more beneficial for patients with higher rectal tumors. Regardless of tumor location, involved circumference quadrants, and tumor size, TEO may more effectively achieve negative resection margins and non-fragmented specimens. Consequently, although local excision method according to tumor distance may be important, TEO will become the standard for rectal tumors.
尽管经肛门内镜手术在全球范围内都有开展,但对于经肛门内镜手术(TEO)和经肛门切除术(TAE)的比较结果尚无共识。在本研究中,我们回顾了我们使用这些技术的经验,并使用倾向评分匹配(PSM)对接受TEO和TAE的患者进行了比较。
2008年1月至2015年11月期间,共有207例患者接受了局部直肠肿瘤切除术。为了克服选择偏倚,我们使用PSM实现TEO与TAE的一对一比例。我们纳入了基线特征、年龄、性别、外科医生、美国麻醉医师协会评分、肿瘤位置(顺时针方向)、累及的圆周象限、肿瘤大小和病理。
PSM后,每组纳入72例患者。TEO组肿瘤距肛缘的距离更高(8.0 [5 - 10] 对比TAE:4.0 [3 - 5],p < 0.001)。两组的并发症发生率无差异(TEO:8.3% 对比TAE:11.1%,p = 0.39)。TEO与住院时间缩短相关(3.01天对比4.68天,p = 0.001),切缘阴性率更高(95.8%对比86.1%,p = 0.039),以及与TAE相比标本完整率更高(98.6%对比90.3%,p = 0.029)。
TEO对高位直肠肿瘤患者更有益。无论肿瘤位置、累及的圆周象限和肿瘤大小如何,TEO可能更有效地实现阴性切缘和完整标本。因此,尽管根据肿瘤距离选择局部切除方法可能很重要,但TEO将成为直肠肿瘤的标准术式。