Endoscopic full-thickness dissection (EFTD) in the rectum: a case series

Background Rectal endoscopic full- thickness dissection (EFTD) using a flexible colonoscope is an alternative to the well-established trans-anal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and the trans-anal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) techniques for resecting dysplastic or malignant rectal lesions. This study evaluated EFTD safety by analyzing outcomes of the first patients to undergo rectal EFTD at the University Hospital of North-Norway. Methods The first 10 patients to undergo rectal EFTD at the University Hospital of North-Norway April, 2016 and January, 2021, were included in the study. The procedural indications for EFTD were therapeutic resection of non-lifting adenoma, T1 adenocarcinoma (AC), recurrent neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and re-excision of a T1-2 AC. Results EFTD rectal specimen histopathology revealed three ACs, five adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (HGD), one NET and one benign lesion. Six procedures had negative lateral and vertical resection margins and in three cases lateral margins could not be evaluated due to piece-meal dissection or heat damaged tissue. Two patients experienced delayed post-procedural hemorrhage, one of whom also presented with a concurrent post-procedural infection. No serious complications occurred. Conclusion Preliminary results from this introductory trial indicate that EFTD in the rectum can be conducted with satisfactory perioperative results and low risk of serious complications.

Mid-term functional and quality of life outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: multicenter comparative matched-pair analyses

Background The aim of this study was to compare patients’ mid-term functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). Methods The data of consecutive female patients who underwent minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for external or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse at 3 hospitals in Finland between January 2011 and December 2016 were retrospectively collected. Patients were matched by age and diagnosis at a 1:1 ratio. A disease-related symptom questionnaire was sent to all living patients at follow-up in July 2018. Results After a total of 401 patients (RVMR, n = 187; LVMR, n = 214) were matched, 152 patients in each group were included in the final analyses. The median follow-up times were 3.3 (range 1.6–7.4) years and 3.0 (range 1.6–7.6) years for the RVMR and LVMR groups, respectively. The postoperative QoL measures did not differ between the groups. Compared with the LVMR group, the RVMR group had lower postoperative Wexner Incontinence Score (median 5 vs. median 8; p < 0.001), experienced significant ongoing incontinence symptoms less often (30.6% vs. 49.0%; p < 0.001) and reported less postoperative faecal incontinence discomfort evaluated with the visual analogue scale (median 11 vs. median 39; p = 0.005). RVMR patients had a shorter hospital stay (2.2 days vs. 3.8 days; p < 0.001) but experienced more frequent de novo pelvic pain (31.8% vs. 11.8%; p < 0.001). Conclusion RVMR and LVMR patients had equal functional and QoL outcomes. Those who underwent RVMR had lower mid-term anal incontinence symptom scores but suffered more frequent de novo pelvic pain.