A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised?
Background Most ulcerative colitis (UC) patients requiring surgery undergo transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed minimally invasively or open. Although one multicenter study demonstrated acceptably low morbidity after transanal pouch, our initial single-center experience with...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of gastrointestinal surgery 2022-05, Vol.26 (5), p.1070-1076 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1076 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 1070 |
container_title | Journal of gastrointestinal surgery |
container_volume | 26 |
creator | Park, Lisa Truong, Adam Zaghiyan, Karen Fleshner, Phillip |
description | Background
Most ulcerative colitis (UC) patients requiring surgery undergo transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed minimally invasively or open. Although one multicenter study demonstrated acceptably low morbidity after transanal pouch, our initial single-center experience with transanal IPAA (ta-IPAA) was associated with an unacceptably high rate of anastomotic leak. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of ta-IPAA and transabdominal IPAA with growing experience of transanal proctectomy and determine whether one approach offered any advantage or benefit over the other.
Methods
Single-center series of consecutive ulcerative colitis patients underwent 3-stage IPAA, either ta-IPAA or transabdominal IPAA at a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome measure was overall complications until immediately prior to stoma closure. Secondary outcomes included postoperative clinical measures.
Results
The study group consisted of 113 patients, which included 37 (33%) patients undergoing transabdominal or open IPAA and 76 (67%) patients undergoing ta-IPAA. The overall complication rate was numerically higher in the ta-IPAA group (56%) compared to the transabdominal group (38%) (p = 0.07) as was the incidence of anastomotic leak in the ta-IPAA group (12 vs. 5%) (p = 0.17). Mean length of hospital stay was significantly higher in the transanal IPAA group (p = 0.04). Operating time, opioid use and pain scores were similar between groups.
Conclusion
Transanal IPAA has a higher incidence of overall complications and anastomotic leak compared to transabdominal IPAA. Postoperative length of stay is significantly higher in patients undergoing ta-IPAA. Operating room time, opiate use and pain scores are comparable between the two surgical approaches. Transanal IPAA appears to offer little advantage over transabdominal IPAA. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2618237325</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2618237325</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4cd43aaa7b9ba60b22d5118bd982936427c23bc8ad57c4f89e20cb6064cd38713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EoqXwBzggS1y4uPgjsZMT2q5aWmlREV0kbpbjzHZdJXawk378JP4lDrtQqQcu49HMM-9o_CL0ltFjRqn6mBiTtCSUM0JLLiThz9Ahq5QgheTyec5pzQgvyx8H6FVKN5QyRVn1Eh2Ioq5FVctD9GuBr5y_7oAswY8Q8TL0g4lmdLeAr8apfcBhgy8H8HgdjU-maUPvvOmw8S1emcyGZMPg7L4_ty46yPFrmOyWLOZCDmkMfUgu4Ts3bvE6jLn8BVKIYOf09N665II_xucm4XEL-MREfAJ57zfjErSfXqMXG9MleLN_j9D3s9P18pysLj9fLBcrYoUqR1LYthDGGNXUjZG04bwtGauatq54LWTBleWisZVpS2WLTVUDp7aRVOZBUSkmjtCHne4Qw88J0qh7lyx0nfEQpqS5ZBUXSvAyo--foDdhivngmZKMK5kdyBTfUTZ_VYqw0UN0vYkPmlE9G6l3RupspP5jpOZ56N1eemp6aP-N_HUuA2IHpNzy1xAfd_9H9jcJnqm0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2661276109</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Park, Lisa ; Truong, Adam ; Zaghiyan, Karen ; Fleshner, Phillip</creator><creatorcontrib>Park, Lisa ; Truong, Adam ; Zaghiyan, Karen ; Fleshner, Phillip</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Most ulcerative colitis (UC) patients requiring surgery undergo transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed minimally invasively or open. Although one multicenter study demonstrated acceptably low morbidity after transanal pouch, our initial single-center experience with transanal IPAA (ta-IPAA) was associated with an unacceptably high rate of anastomotic leak. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of ta-IPAA and transabdominal IPAA with growing experience of transanal proctectomy and determine whether one approach offered any advantage or benefit over the other.
Methods
Single-center series of consecutive ulcerative colitis patients underwent 3-stage IPAA, either ta-IPAA or transabdominal IPAA at a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome measure was overall complications until immediately prior to stoma closure. Secondary outcomes included postoperative clinical measures.
Results
The study group consisted of 113 patients, which included 37 (33%) patients undergoing transabdominal or open IPAA and 76 (67%) patients undergoing ta-IPAA. The overall complication rate was numerically higher in the ta-IPAA group (56%) compared to the transabdominal group (38%) (p = 0.07) as was the incidence of anastomotic leak in the ta-IPAA group (12 vs. 5%) (p = 0.17). Mean length of hospital stay was significantly higher in the transanal IPAA group (p = 0.04). Operating time, opioid use and pain scores were similar between groups.
Conclusion
Transanal IPAA has a higher incidence of overall complications and anastomotic leak compared to transabdominal IPAA. Postoperative length of stay is significantly higher in patients undergoing ta-IPAA. Operating room time, opiate use and pain scores are comparable between the two surgical approaches. Transanal IPAA appears to offer little advantage over transabdominal IPAA.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1091-255X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4626</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34993896</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Air leakage ; Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects ; Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology ; Anastomotic Leak - etiology ; Anastomotic Leak - surgery ; Colitis, Ulcerative - surgery ; Colonic Pouches - adverse effects ; Dissection ; Gastroenterology ; Gastrointestinal surgery ; Humans ; Inflammatory bowel disease ; Laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - adverse effects ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Narcotics ; Original Article ; Ostomy ; Pain ; Patients ; Pelvis ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Postoperative Complications - surgery ; Proctocolectomy, Restorative - adverse effects ; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery ; Rectum ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgeons ; Surgery ; Surgical anastomosis ; Surgical outcomes ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2022-05, Vol.26 (5), p.1070-1076</ispartof><rights>The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.</rights><rights>The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4cd43aaa7b9ba60b22d5118bd982936427c23bc8ad57c4f89e20cb6064cd38713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4cd43aaa7b9ba60b22d5118bd982936427c23bc8ad57c4f89e20cb6064cd38713</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3925-385X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34993896$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Park, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Truong, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaghiyan, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fleshner, Phillip</creatorcontrib><title>A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised?</title><title>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</title><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><description>Background
Most ulcerative colitis (UC) patients requiring surgery undergo transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed minimally invasively or open. Although one multicenter study demonstrated acceptably low morbidity after transanal pouch, our initial single-center experience with transanal IPAA (ta-IPAA) was associated with an unacceptably high rate of anastomotic leak. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of ta-IPAA and transabdominal IPAA with growing experience of transanal proctectomy and determine whether one approach offered any advantage or benefit over the other.
Methods
Single-center series of consecutive ulcerative colitis patients underwent 3-stage IPAA, either ta-IPAA or transabdominal IPAA at a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome measure was overall complications until immediately prior to stoma closure. Secondary outcomes included postoperative clinical measures.
Results
The study group consisted of 113 patients, which included 37 (33%) patients undergoing transabdominal or open IPAA and 76 (67%) patients undergoing ta-IPAA. The overall complication rate was numerically higher in the ta-IPAA group (56%) compared to the transabdominal group (38%) (p = 0.07) as was the incidence of anastomotic leak in the ta-IPAA group (12 vs. 5%) (p = 0.17). Mean length of hospital stay was significantly higher in the transanal IPAA group (p = 0.04). Operating time, opioid use and pain scores were similar between groups.
Conclusion
Transanal IPAA has a higher incidence of overall complications and anastomotic leak compared to transabdominal IPAA. Postoperative length of stay is significantly higher in patients undergoing ta-IPAA. Operating room time, opiate use and pain scores are comparable between the two surgical approaches. Transanal IPAA appears to offer little advantage over transabdominal IPAA.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Air leakage</subject><subject>Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - etiology</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - surgery</subject><subject>Colitis, Ulcerative - surgery</subject><subject>Colonic Pouches - adverse effects</subject><subject>Dissection</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inflammatory bowel disease</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Narcotics</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Ostomy</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pelvis</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - surgery</subject><subject>Proctocolectomy, Restorative - adverse effects</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Rectum</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical anastomosis</subject><subject>Surgical outcomes</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1091-255X</issn><issn>1873-4626</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EoqXwBzggS1y4uPgjsZMT2q5aWmlREV0kbpbjzHZdJXawk378JP4lDrtQqQcu49HMM-9o_CL0ltFjRqn6mBiTtCSUM0JLLiThz9Ahq5QgheTyec5pzQgvyx8H6FVKN5QyRVn1Eh2Ioq5FVctD9GuBr5y_7oAswY8Q8TL0g4lmdLeAr8apfcBhgy8H8HgdjU-maUPvvOmw8S1emcyGZMPg7L4_ty46yPFrmOyWLOZCDmkMfUgu4Ts3bvE6jLn8BVKIYOf09N665II_xucm4XEL-MREfAJ57zfjErSfXqMXG9MleLN_j9D3s9P18pysLj9fLBcrYoUqR1LYthDGGNXUjZG04bwtGauatq54LWTBleWisZVpS2WLTVUDp7aRVOZBUSkmjtCHne4Qw88J0qh7lyx0nfEQpqS5ZBUXSvAyo--foDdhivngmZKMK5kdyBTfUTZ_VYqw0UN0vYkPmlE9G6l3RupspP5jpOZ56N1eemp6aP-N_HUuA2IHpNzy1xAfd_9H9jcJnqm0</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Park, Lisa</creator><creator>Truong, Adam</creator><creator>Zaghiyan, Karen</creator><creator>Fleshner, Phillip</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3925-385X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised?</title><author>Park, Lisa ; Truong, Adam ; Zaghiyan, Karen ; Fleshner, Phillip</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4cd43aaa7b9ba60b22d5118bd982936427c23bc8ad57c4f89e20cb6064cd38713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Air leakage</topic><topic>Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - etiology</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - surgery</topic><topic>Colitis, Ulcerative - surgery</topic><topic>Colonic Pouches - adverse effects</topic><topic>Dissection</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inflammatory bowel disease</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Narcotics</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Ostomy</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pelvis</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - surgery</topic><topic>Proctocolectomy, Restorative - adverse effects</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Rectum</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical anastomosis</topic><topic>Surgical outcomes</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Park, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Truong, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaghiyan, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fleshner, Phillip</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Park, Lisa</au><au>Truong, Adam</au><au>Zaghiyan, Karen</au><au>Fleshner, Phillip</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</jtitle><stitle>J Gastrointest Surg</stitle><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1070</spage><epage>1076</epage><pages>1070-1076</pages><issn>1091-255X</issn><eissn>1873-4626</eissn><abstract>Background
Most ulcerative colitis (UC) patients requiring surgery undergo transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed minimally invasively or open. Although one multicenter study demonstrated acceptably low morbidity after transanal pouch, our initial single-center experience with transanal IPAA (ta-IPAA) was associated with an unacceptably high rate of anastomotic leak. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of ta-IPAA and transabdominal IPAA with growing experience of transanal proctectomy and determine whether one approach offered any advantage or benefit over the other.
Methods
Single-center series of consecutive ulcerative colitis patients underwent 3-stage IPAA, either ta-IPAA or transabdominal IPAA at a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome measure was overall complications until immediately prior to stoma closure. Secondary outcomes included postoperative clinical measures.
Results
The study group consisted of 113 patients, which included 37 (33%) patients undergoing transabdominal or open IPAA and 76 (67%) patients undergoing ta-IPAA. The overall complication rate was numerically higher in the ta-IPAA group (56%) compared to the transabdominal group (38%) (p = 0.07) as was the incidence of anastomotic leak in the ta-IPAA group (12 vs. 5%) (p = 0.17). Mean length of hospital stay was significantly higher in the transanal IPAA group (p = 0.04). Operating time, opioid use and pain scores were similar between groups.
Conclusion
Transanal IPAA has a higher incidence of overall complications and anastomotic leak compared to transabdominal IPAA. Postoperative length of stay is significantly higher in patients undergoing ta-IPAA. Operating room time, opiate use and pain scores are comparable between the two surgical approaches. Transanal IPAA appears to offer little advantage over transabdominal IPAA.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>34993896</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3925-385X</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1091-255X |
ispartof | Journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2022-05, Vol.26 (5), p.1070-1076 |
issn | 1091-255X 1873-4626 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2618237325 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Abdomen Air leakage Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology Anastomotic Leak - etiology Anastomotic Leak - surgery Colitis, Ulcerative - surgery Colonic Pouches - adverse effects Dissection Gastroenterology Gastrointestinal surgery Humans Inflammatory bowel disease Laparoscopy Laparoscopy - adverse effects Medicine Medicine & Public Health Narcotics Original Article Ostomy Pain Patients Pelvis Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Postoperative Complications - etiology Postoperative Complications - surgery Proctocolectomy, Restorative - adverse effects Rectal Neoplasms - surgery Rectum Retrospective Studies Surgeons Surgery Surgical anastomosis Surgical outcomes Treatment Outcome |
title | A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T19%3A48%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Single-Center%20Comparative%20Study%20of%20Open%20Transabdominal%20and%20Laparoscopic%20Transanal%20Ileal%20Pouch-Anal%20Anastomosis%20with%20Total%20Mesorectal%20Excision.%20Has%20the%20Bar%20Been%20Raised?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20gastrointestinal%20surgery&rft.au=Park,%20Lisa&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1070&rft.epage=1076&rft.pages=1070-1076&rft.issn=1091-255X&rft.eissn=1873-4626&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2618237325%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2661276109&rft_id=info:pmid/34993896&rfr_iscdi=true |