The effect of endoscopic mucosal resection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery on anorectal function.

AIM: The study assessed the impact on anorectal function of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) of large rectal adenomas. METHOD: Patients with a large (≥ 3 cm) rectal adenoma undergoing EMR or TEM were included. Self-reported faecal incontinence was assessed using the Colorectal Functional Outcome (COREFO) questionnaire and the Wexner Incontinence Grading Scale. Anorectal manometry was performed before and at 6 months after treatment to measure anal resting (ARP) and squeeze pressure (SP), squeeze endurance (SE), the rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR), rectal volumetry of first sensation (FS), first urge (FU), maximum tolerable volume (MTV) and rectal compliance (RC). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were included in the study, of whom 11 underwent EMR and 13 underwent TEM. The mean adenoma size was 51 ± 19 mm and the median distance from the anal verge was 3 cm (interquartile range 1-10 cm). Follow-up data were available from 20 patients; one patient had died and three had undergone total mesorectal excision. Incontinence for liquid stool and Wexner score decreased significantly after treatment. In contrast, none of the measured parameters of anorectal motility (ARP, SP, SE, RAIR, RC) and perception (FS, FU, MTV) was affected by adenoma resection. No differences were found in baseline and follow-up incontinence and functional parameters between intervention groups, except for postprocedural ARP, which was lower after TEM than after EMR. CONCLUSION: Continence in patients with a large rectal adenoma improved after EMR or TEM, probably due to decreased rectal mucus production. Anal sphincter pressure, rectoanal reflexes, rectal sensation and compliance were not affected by adenoma resection.

Endoscopic mucosal resection vs transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of large rectal adenomas.

AIM: Large (> 2 cm) rectal adenomas are currently treated by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). The potential lower morbidity of EMR becomes irrelevant if it is less effective. We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of EMR and TEM for large rectal adenomas. METHOD: Data from patients undergoing TEM or EMR for a rectal adenoma > 2 cm in eight hospitals were retrospectively collected. Patient- and procedure-related characteristics, complications and recurrences were recorded. As EMR may require several attempts to achieve complete resection, early (after a single intervention) and late (permitting re-treatment for residual adenoma within 6 months) recurrence rates were determined. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-two (292) patients (49% male; mean age 67 years) were included; 219 were treated by TEM and 73 by EMR. Adenomas treated by EMR were smaller (median 30 vs 40 mm; P = 0.007). Perioperative complication rates were 2% for TEM and 6% for EMR (P = 0.171). Postoperative complications occurred in 24% of TEM patients and in 13% of EMR patients (P = 0.038). Median hospitalization after TEM was 3 days vs 0 days after EMR (P < 0.001). Median follow-up was 12.6 months (0-47 months); Early recurrence rates were 10.2% in TEM patients and 31.0% in EMR patients (P < 0.001); late recurrence rates were 9.6% and 13.8%, respectively (P = 0.386). CONCLUSION: After a single intervention, EMR of large rectal adenomas seems less effective, but safer than TEM. When allowing re-treatment of residual adenoma within 6 months, EMR and TEM seem equally effective. A prospective randomized comparison seems to be necessary.

Systematic review of endoscopic mucosal resection versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery for large rectal adenomas.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Large ( > 2 cm) rectal adenomas are currently treated by either transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). The potential lower morbidity of EMR may become irrelevant if EMR is less effective. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of EMR and TEM for large rectal adenomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published between January 1980 and January 2009 was conducted. Pooled estimates of the proportion of patients with recurrence or complications in EMR and TEM studies were compared using random effects meta-regression analysis. Early (after single intervention) and late (excluding re-treatment of residual adenoma detected within 3 months) recurrence rates were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 20 EMR studies and 48 TEM studies were included. No studies directly compared EMR with TEM. Mean polyp size was 31 mm (range 2 - 86 mm) for EMR vs. 37 mm (range 3 - 182 mm) for TEM (P = 0.02). Early recurrence rates were 11.2 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 6.0 - 19.9) for EMR vs. 5.4 % (95 %CI 4.0 - 7.3) for TEM (P = 0.04). Late recurrence rates were 1.5 % (95 %CI 0.6 - 3.9) for EMR vs. 3.0 % (95 %CI 1.3 - 6.9) for TEM (P = 0.29). Postoperative complication rates were 3.8 % (95 %CI 2.8 - 5.3) for EMR vs. 13.0 % (95 %CI 9.8 - 17.0) for TEM (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After single intervention, EMR for large rectal adenomas appears to be less effective but safer than TEM. When outcome data for re-treatment of residual adenoma within 3  months are included, EMR and TEM seem equally effective. Nevertheless, the added morbidity of additional EMRs could not be accounted for in this analysis. A prospective randomized trial seems imperative before making recommendations concerning the treatment of large rectal adenomas.