Users Online : 352 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ahead of Print

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery under spinal anaesthesia


1 Department of Surgery, Rabin Medical Center, Hasharon Hospital, Petach Tikva; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
2 Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv; Department of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Hasharon Hospital, Petach Tikva, Israel
3 Department of Surgery, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel

Correspondence Address:
Nidal Issa,
Department of Surgery, Rabin Medical Center, Hasharon Hospital, 7 Keren Kayemet Street, Petah Tikva
Israel
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_144_20

Background: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is considered the procedure of choice for rectal adenomas non-amendable for endoscopic excision and for early rectal cancer. TEM may gain more importance in patients who are considered unfit for major surgery. The option of spinal anaesthesia may offer many advantages for patients undergoing TEM while maintaining the principles of complete tumour excision. The aim of this study is to report the outcome of patients undergoing TEM under spinal anaesthesia. Methods: Demographic and clinical data pertaining patients undergoing TEM under spinal anaesthesia between 2004 and 2015 were retrospectively collected. Results: A total of 158 TEM procedures were recorded in the study period. Twenty-three patients (15%) underwent the procedure under spinal anaesthesia and were included in the study; 13 of them were male and ten were female. The mean age of the patients was 69.1 ± 10.6 years. Seventeen (74%) rectal lesions were adenomas, two (9%) were adenocarcinoma and four (17%) had involved margins after polypectomy. The mean tumour size was 2.1 cm (range, 0.5–3). Distance from the anal verge was 7.7 ± 2.2 cm. Seventeen (74%) lesions were in the posterior wall. The operative time was 73 min (range, 46–108) No adverse anaesthesia-related events were recorded, and the post-operative pain was reduced. The median time of hospitalisation was 2 days (range, 1–4). No major complications were noted, and the minor complications were treated conservatively. The surgical margins were free of tumour in all cases. Conclusion: TEM under spinal anaesthesia had short duration of surgery, no increase in operative and post-operative complications or hospital length of stay. Avoiding the use of general anaesthesia, in such challenging procedure, may open new opportunities for patients determined to be unfit for general anaesthesia.


Print this article
Search
 Back
 
  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Berger Y
    -  Gingold-Belfer R
    -  Khatib M
    -  Yassin M
    -  Khoury W
    -  Schmilovitz-Weiss H
    -  Issa N
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed77    
    PDF Downloaded1    

Recommend this journal

2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04