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

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • 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
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 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
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • 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
      • 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
  • Opportunities
    • 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 and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery: Advantages and Indications of Submucosal and Full-thickness Resection Techniques

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery: Advantages and Indications of Submucosal and Full-thickness Resection Techniques

Antonio Maya, MD, Marylise Boutros, MD, Mohammed Elmessiry, MD, Giovanna da Silva, MD, Steven D Wexner, MD, Dana Sands, MD

Cleveland Clinic Florida

INTRODUCTION: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for the excision of rectal lesions can be performed by submucosal (SM) or full-thickness (FT) techniques. We aimed to compare the operative, pathologic and postoperative outcomes of these 2 techniques in order to better define the optimal indications and applications for each method.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES: After IRB approval, patients who underwent resection of rectal tumors by TEM from 11/2005 to 8/2012 were identified from our prospective database. Demographics, operative, pathologic and postoperative variables were obtained from chart review. Outcomes for SM and FT TEM resections were compared using chi-square and Student’s t-tests. A p < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS: Eighty-six patients (median 66 years, 70.7% male) underwent 89 TEM resections (56 FT and 33 SM). The 2 groups were well matched for demographics, ASA score, comorbidity and number of previous incomplete (transanal or endoscopic) polypectomies. The most common indication for TEM in both groups was dysplasia (SM 100% vs. FT 62.5%, p=0.001). FT was preferentially used for adenocarcinoma (SM 0 % vs. FT 25.0%, p=0.001) and carcinoid (SM 0% vs. FT 12.5 %, p=0.03) lesions. The most common tumor location was left lateral (30.3%). Posterior tumors were more frequent in FT (SM 9.09% vs. FT 37.5%, p=0.001). SM technique was associated with more specimen fragmentation (SM 27.2% vs. FT 1.7%, p=0.001) and involved margins (SM 45.5% vs. 17.9%, p=0.001), without any impact on recurrence (SM 3.03% vs. FT 3.70%, p=0.86). There was a trend for specimen size to be larger for SM compared with FT (5.2±3.8 vs. 4.2 cm±1.3, p=0.15). Larger specimens were associated with fragmentation (fragmented 6.9±6.5 vs. nonfragmented 4.4±1.4 cm, p=0.001).There were no differences between FT and SM for mean distance from the anal verge (8.13 cm ±3.32), blood loss (18.2 mL ±19.8), operative time (109.53 minutes ±65.6), intraoperative complications (3.37%), hospital stay (1.62 days, ±1.44) and postoperative complications (SM 15.2% vs. FT 16.1%, p=0.908). Three patients were readmitted (SM 5.35 % vs. FT 0.00, p=0.17). No reoperations were needed. The mean follow-up was 5.6 (1-70) months. The incidences of transient impaired continence were similar between groups (SM 18.2% vs. FT 12.5%, p=0.46) and resolved within 90 days post-TEM.

CONCLUSION: With appropriate patient selection, SM and FT are both safe and effective TEM techniques. FT is associated with free margins and lack of fragmentation; thus, it is better suited for tumors that are highly suspicious for or have proven malignancy. SM resection is associated with more specimen fragmentation and involved margins, without any impact upon disease recurrence. Therefore, the SM technique is better suited for large extensive, high and benign lesions involving the anterior and lateral rectum, as this technique preserves the integrity of the rectal wall, avoiding peritoneal entry.


Session: Poster Presentation

Program Number: P109

450

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals