• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Laparoscopic Versus NOTES Rectosigmoid Resection Using Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) in a Swine Survival Model

Laparoscopic Versus NOTES Rectosigmoid Resection Using Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) in a Swine Survival Model

Patricia Sylla, MD, Min-Chan Kim, MD, Abdulmetin Dursun, MD, Liliana Bordeianou, MD MPH, Ifode Ajari, MD, Sevdenur Cizginer, MD, Brian Turner, MD, Denise W Gee, MD, Mari Mino-Kenudson, MD, William R Brugge, MD, David W Rattner, MD. Massachusetts General Hospital

INTRODUCTION: Our group previously demonstrated the feasibility and safety of NOTES transanal endoscopic rectosigmoid resection in a swine survival study using TEM alone or in combination with transgastric endoscopic assistance to extend the length of colon mobilized. Transanal endoscopic rectosigmoid resection using TEM with stapled coloanal anastomosis (TEM, n=15) was prospectively compared to laparoscopic sigmoid resection with stapled colorectal anastomosis (Lap, n=15) in a swine survival study.

METHODS: NOTES transanal rectosigmoid procedures were performed as previously described and laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection was performed using 4 trocars. All anastomoses were evaluated endoscopically. Animals were survived for 2 weeks and necropsy findings including histological evaluation of the anastomoses were recorded. Operative and postoperative outcomes were evaluated and compared between the groups using Fisher’s Exact and Student’s T tests.

RESULTS: The mean operative time was 83 minutes (range, 55-175) in the TEM vs. 57 minutes (range, 41-105) in the Lap group ( p=0.006). There were no differences in the average length of colon resected transanally in the TEM group (7cm, range 5.5-10.5) vs. transabdominally in the Lap group (7.6 cm, range 6-10.5, p=0.268). No intraoperative organ injury or significant bleeding was noted in either group and all stapled anastomoses were intact. All Lap animals vs. none in the TEM group required narcotics postoperatively in addition to NSAIDS (p<0.001). Postoperatively, TEM animals passed stool at an average of 2 days (range, 1-5) vs. 3.8 days in the Lap group (range, 2-7, p=0.004). One TEM animal developed progressive renal failure from distal urethral obstruction and was sacrificed on postoperative day 13. One Lap animal developed a port-site hernia on postoperative day 1 that required surgical repair. Twelve animals (40%) developed obstructive symptoms (2 TEM vs. 10 Lap animals, p=0.003) requiring either digital or endoscopic dislodgement of a hematoma at the anastomosis on day 3-5 following procedures. At necropsy, TEM animals gained an average 3.1 kg (range, -3 to +10) vs. 2.6 kg (range, -2 to +8) in the Lap group (p=0.6). Staple lines were located an average 3.3 cm from the anal verge in the TEM group (range, 2.5-4.5) vs. 14.6cm (range, 9.5-25) in the Lap group (p<0.001). Histopathology analysis demonstrated healthy granulation tissue at all anastomoses with microabscesses around the staples in 5/15 TEM vs. 5/15 Lap colorectal specimens.

CONCLUSIONS: Relative to the laparoscopic approach, NOTES rectosigmoid resection using TEM is safe in a porcine survival model and associated with faster recovery of bowel function. A high incidence of symptomatic hematoma at the stapled anastomoses was noted in the laparoscopic group which may be related to a more significant ileus.


Session: SS11
Program Number: S059

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals