RESUMEN
Background: To compare tumor margins and surgical outcomes between transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for large or malignant rectal adenomatous polyps. Methods: Single institution retrospective analysis of patients who underwent TAMIS or ESD surgery. Results: In total, 30 consecutive patients with similar demographics who underwent either TAMIS (n = 19) or ESD (n = 11) were included. The median (interquartile range, IQR) tumor distances from the anal verge for TAMIS and ESD were 5 cm (3.5-8) and 3 cm (2-4.25) (P = 0.016). Four in TAMIS and two in ESD occupied more than half of the circumference of the bowel lumen. Five (four in situ and one stage 1) in TAMIS and two (one in situ and one stage 1) in ESD were malignant. The median specimen length, width, and height were 3.2 cm, 2.6 cm, and 1.0 cm and 3.5 cm, 2.0 cm, and 0.3 cm for TAMIS and ESD, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in tumor circumference, malignant ratios, or specimen sizes. Resection margins were involved in two of the ESD, while none of the TAMIS were involved (P = 0.041). The median (IQR) operative time was 72 (62-89) minutes and 120 (90-180) minutes for TAMIS and ESD (P = 0.005). The median (IQR) follow-up time was 3.3 (0.3-11.7) and 0.9 (0.3-15.4) months for TAMIS and ESD. There were no morbidities, no mortalities, or local recurrences among the two groups. Conclusions: Both TAMIS and ESD were found to be feasible and safe in community hospital practice. Operative time was shorter, and there were no involved margins in TAMIS (versus ESD).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Polyps seen and not removed during colonoscope insertion are sometimes unable to be found during withdrawal. We aimed to evaluate whether additional inspection and polypectomy during insertion increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal. METHODS: A total of 421 patients aged ≥ 45 years and undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively randomized to receive inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal (study group) or inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal (control group). The primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes included other adenoma-related parameters and procedure-related measures. RESULTS: Baseline demographics, procedure indications, preparation quality, total procedure time, sedative doses, colonoscopy difficulty, and patient discomfort were similar between the groups. The insertion time was significantly longer in the study group (11.1 ± 4.8 vs 6.2 ± 4.7 min, P < 0.0001). The withdrawal time was significantly longer in the control group (29.2 ± 9.8 vs 23.1 ± 7.9 min, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the ADR (63.5% [study group] vs 68.1% [control group]), the mean adenoma per procedure (1.6 ± 2.0 vs 1.9 ± 2.4), or the mean adenoma per positive procedure (2.5 ± 2.0 vs 2.7 ± 2.5) between groups. The proximal colon ADR was significantly higher in the control group compared with the study group (56.2% vs 46.0%, P = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Additional inspection and polypectomy during colonoscope insertion did not improve ADR compared with inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal. These results do not support an additional role for routine inspection during insertion (clinical trial registration number: NCT03444090).