Skip to main content
Log in

TransAnal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) with SILS™ Port versus Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM): a comparative experimental study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

TransAnal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) has been proposed as an alternative to Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) for resection of benign polyps and early cancers of rectum. Since clinical application has begun in the absence of any experimental validation, we assessed its feasibility and efficacy ex vivo in a pilot study.

Methods

In a dedicated trainer box for transanal procedures, 10 surgeons with no experience in transanal surgery were asked to perform a dissection/suture task using both TAMIS and TEM in randomly allocated order. Surgeons were asked to dissect two identically drawn lesions of ~3 cm in larger diameter. Precision of dissection was assessed using a quantitative photographic method, while the time needed for dissection and suturing was considered a measure of quantitative evaluation. Each participant expressed a subjective opinion regarding difficulty with dissection, difficulty with suturing, vision quality, and conflict between instruments on a scale from 1 to 5.

Results

No difference was observed between the two techniques regarding the accuracy of dissection as the margin was interrupted along 4.1 % of the circumference in the TEM group compared with 2.48 % in the SILS group (P = 0.271). Dissection and suturing were significantly quicker in the TEM group [04:30 vs. 06:35 min (P = 0.049) and 14:34 versus 19:18 min (P = 0.003)]. In three cases in the SILS group, completing the suture was not considered possible, and the procedures were terminated by TEM. Subjective evaluation revealed a better appreciation of TEM in all proposed comparisons: dissection (2.6 vs. 3.5, P = 0.004), suturing difficulty (3.1 vs. 4.6, P < 0.001), quality of vision (2.3 vs. 2.8, P = 0.18), and instrument conflicts (3.1 vs. 4.0, P = 0.054).

Conclusions

In the ex vivo setting, both techniques were comparable for achieving a good dissection, although TAMIS failed to prove effective in suturing the rectal wall. Moreover, TEM was significantly quicker despite the small groups and was better appreciated by the surgeons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buess G, Hutterer F, Theiss J, Böbel M, Isselhard W, Pichlmaier H (1984) A system for a transanal endoscopic rectum operation. Chirurg 55:677–680

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Buess G (1993) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). J R Coll Surg Edinb 38:239–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Casadesus D (2009) Surgical resection of rectal adenoma: a rapid review. World J Gastroenterol 15:3844–3851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allaix ME, Arezzo A, Caldart M, Festa F, Morino M (2009) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal neoplasms: experience of 300 consecutive cases. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1831–1836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Suppiah A, Maslekar S, Alabi A, Hartley JE, Monson JR (2008) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery in early rectal cancer: time for a trial? Colorectal Dis 10:314–327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bach SP, Hill J, Simson JN, Lane L, Merrie A, Warren B, Mortensen NJ, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) Collaboration (2009) A predictive model for local recurrence after transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:280–290

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Vettoretto N, Arezzo A (2010) Human natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: on the way to two different philosophies? Surg Endosc 24:490–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Middleton PF, Sutherland LM, Maddern GJ (2005) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 48:270–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Atallah S, Albert M, Larach S (2010) Transanal minimally invasive surgery: a giant leap forward. Surg Endosc 24:2200–2205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lim SB, Seo SI, Lee JL, Kwak JY, Jang TY, Kim CW, Yoon YS, Yu CS, Kim JC (2012) Feasibility of transanal minimally invasive surgery for mid-rectal lesions. Surg Endosc 26:3127–3132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lorenz C, Nimmesgern T, Back M, Langwieler TE (2010) Transanal single port microsurgery (TSPM) as a modified technique of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Surg Innov 17:160–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ragupathi M, Haas EM (2011) Trans-anal endoscopic video-assisted excision: application of single-port access. JSLS 15:53–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayashi S, Takayama T, Yamagata M, Matsuda M, Masuda H (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery used to perform transanal endoscopic microsurgery (SILSTEM) for T1 rectal cancer under spinal anesthesia: report of a case. Surg Today 43(3):325–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith RA, Anaya DA, Albo D, Artinyan A (2012) A stepwise approach to transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer using a single-incision laparoscopic port. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hompes R, Ris F, Cunningham C, Mortensen NJ, Cahill RA (2012) Transanal glove port is a safe and cost-effective alternative for transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Br J Surg 99:1429–1435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Barendse RM, Doornebosch P, Bemelman W, Fockens P, Dekker E, de Graaf E (2012) Transanal employment of single access ports is feasible for rectal surgery. Ann Surg 256:1030–1033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Carrara A, Mangiola D, Motter M, Tirone A, Ghezzi G, Silvestri M, Zappalà O, Gasparetti F, Tirone G (2012) Glove port technique for transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Int J Surg Oncol 2012:438450

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Barendse RM, Doornebosch PG, Bemelman WA, Fockens P, Dekker E, de Graaf EJ (2012) Transanal single-port surgery: selecting a suitable access port in a porcine model. Surg Innov 19:323–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Whiteford MH, Denk PM, Swanström LL (2007) Feasibility of radical sigmoid colectomy performed as natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) using transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Surg Endosc 21:1870–1874

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Khoo RE (2010) Transanal excision of a rectal adenoma using single-access laparoscopic port. Dis Colon Rectum 53:1078–1079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dardamanis D, Theodorou D, Theodoropoulos G, Larentzakis A, Natoudi M, Doulami G, Zoumpouli C, Markogiannakis H, Katsaragakis S, Zografos G (2011) Transanal polypectomy using single incision laparoscopic instruments. World J Gastrointest Surg 3:56–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lorenz C, Nimmesgern T, Langwieler TE (2011) Transanal endoscopic surgery using different single-port devices. Surg Technol Int 21:107–111

    Google Scholar 

  23. Van den Boezem PB, Kruyt PM, Stommel MW, Tobon Morales R, Cuesta MA, Siestes C (2011) Transanal single-port surgery for the resection of large polyps. Dig Surg 28:412–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

Dr. Rimonda, Dr. Arolfo, Dr. Salvai and Prof. Morino, have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Prof. Arezzo is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson Medical (Cincinnati, OH, USA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Rimonda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rimonda, R., Arezzo, A., Arolfo, S. et al. TransAnal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) with SILS™ Port versus Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM): a comparative experimental study. Surg Endosc 27, 3762–3768 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2962-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2962-z

Keywords

Navigation