International journal of colorectal disease · 2017
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for giant benign rectal tumours: is large size a contraindication?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dulskas Audrius, Kilius Alfredas, Petrulis Kestutis, Samalavicius Narimantas E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to look at our early postoperative results, recurrence rates and need for further radical surgery in treating large (> 5 cm) rectal tumours by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).
METHODS: Patients who underwent TEM for rectal tumours greater than 5 cm were included. Tumour diameter was determined based on fresh specimen measurements. We recorded the demographics, operative details, final pathology, length of hospital stay, complications and recurrence rates.
RESULTS: Mean tumour size was 5.9 ± 1.5 cm. 68.4% of tumours (13/19) were in the middle part of the rectum. Three patients (15.8%) developed postoperative complications: two had postoperative bleeding (10.5%), one had wound dehiscence (5.3%). Three patients had involved margins (15.8%). After a median follow up of 25.2 months, there were two recurrences (10.5%). One patient developed rectal cancer 6 years after removal of rectal adenoma.
CONCLUSION: TEM is feasible and safe for the treatment of giant benign rectal tumours. It may be an alternative method for proctectomy in selected patients.
METHODS: Patients who underwent TEM for rectal tumours greater than 5 cm were included. Tumour diameter was determined based on fresh specimen measurements. We recorded the demographics, operative details, final pathology, length of hospital stay, complications and recurrence rates.
RESULTS: Mean tumour size was 5.9 ± 1.5 cm. 68.4% of tumours (13/19) were in the middle part of the rectum. Three patients (15.8%) developed postoperative complications: two had postoperative bleeding (10.5%), one had wound dehiscence (5.3%). Three patients had involved margins (15.8%). After a median follow up of 25.2 months, there were two recurrences (10.5%). One patient developed rectal cancer 6 years after removal of rectal adenoma.
CONCLUSION: TEM is feasible and safe for the treatment of giant benign rectal tumours. It may be an alternative method for proctectomy in selected patients.