Study of Unsutured Versus Sutured Closure of Rectal Defects After Rectal Lesion Excisions Using Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery

NCT ID: NCT01465945

Last Updated: 2014-07-22

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

50 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2012-03-31

Study Completion Date

2013-10-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) is a minimally invasive technique used to remove rectal tumours. After the tumour has been removed from the rectum, the surgeon has a choice to close the defect or leave the defect open and naturally close. Currently, both options are accepted as standard care.

Leaving the defect open to close naturally has some possible advantages, including shortened operation time and similar rates of postoperative complications. However, there is some concern that not surgically closing the defect may lead to more postoperative pain and delay in recovery.

The study will be a double blind randomized controlled trial and determine whether patients who have rectal wall defect sutured closed have less post-operative pain compared to patients whose defect is left open.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Summary

Background Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) is an advanced minimally invasive endoluminal technique used to remove rectal tumours. In the open transanal excision era, there is evidence that outcomes in unsutured rectal defects are similar to those in patients whose defect is closed. However, the evidence for this approach is minimal and technical differences in TEM (e.g. rectal insufflation) may mean that leaving defects unsutured is not a safe approach. Further, there is anecdotal evidence that unsutured defects lead to more postoperative pain and delay recovery.

Objective The purpose of this study is to determine if postoperative pain (primary) and early postoperative complications (secondary) are worse in patients undergoing TEM and do not have the defect closed when compare to similar patients who have endoluminal suture closure of the defect.

Methods This is a multicentre, double blind randomized controlled trial of suture closure versus no closure in patients treated by TEM for rectal lesions. The study will include patients 18 years and older with rectal lesions within 12cm of the anal verge treated with TEM. The primary outcome is postoperative pain as measured by validated visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes include analgesic use and early (\<30 day) complications. Based on anticipated VAS scores, a sample size of 38 patients will be enrolled (power 0.80, α=0.05). Statistical analysis will be performed using student's T test for continuous data and Fischer's exact test for dichotomous variables.

Impact Currently, only 3 centres in Canada have experience with TEM: Vancouver, Winnipeg and Ottawa. This study represents the first trial of a Canadian TEM Collaborative and will determine if there is an advantage to suture closure of the rectal defect in TEM surgery. This is important, as suture technique is challenging and if there are important advantages to this approach, there would be a mandate to perfect suturing technique before employing the TEM approach to rectal tumours. Conversely, if there is an advantage to leaving the defect unsutured, this may reduce operative time and facilitate better use of OR time. Further, it will inform all TEM surgeons of the best approach to the rectal defect and optimize patient care. Finally, this study will serve as a starting point for further trials by the Canadian TEM Collaborative that will expand to include new sites and become a world leader in TEM clinical trials.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Post-operative Pain Complications

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Rectal Defect Sutured

The subject will have his/her defect sutured after the rectal tumors have been removed.

Group Type OTHER

Defect Sutured

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Defect is sutured after the rectal tumor has been removed by TEM.

Rectal Defect Unsutured

The defect will be left open and let naturally close after the rectal tumor has been removed by TEM.

Group Type OTHER

Defect Unsutured

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

The defect is not sutured after the rectal tumor is removed by TEM.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Defect Unsutured

The defect is not sutured after the rectal tumor is removed by TEM.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Defect Sutured

Defect is sutured after the rectal tumor has been removed by TEM.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* The patients must be over 18 years old with a rectal lesion \< 12cm from the anal verge (as measured by rigid sigmoidoscopy) and less than half the circumference of the rectal lumen. The patient must provide informed consent for TEM and inclusion in the trial.

Exclusion Criteria

* The surgeon decides to convert to laparotomy or conventional TAE for any reason during tumor excision.
* The surgeon judges that the rectal defect is not appropriate for suturing (e.g. too large) or to be left unsutured (e.g. entry into peritoneal cavity)
* The patient is currently treated for chronic pain prior to surgery, has a known bleeding diathesis (e.g. warfarin treatment, hemophilia, etc) or is immunosuppressed (e.g. Prednisone, HIV,etc)
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Dr. Carl J Brown

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Dr. Carl J Brown

Head, Division of General Surgery, clinical assistant professor of surgery at University of British Columbia

Responsibility Role SPONSOR_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Carl J Brown, MD, MSc

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Saint Paul's Hospital

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Saint Paul's Hospital

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Site Status

Vancouver General Hospital

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Site Status

The Ottawa Hospital

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Canada

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

McCourt M, Armitage J, Monson JR. Rectal cancer. Surgeon. 2009 Jun;7(3):162-9. doi: 10.1016/s1479-666x(09)80040-1.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19580180 (View on PubMed)

Buess G, Hutterer F, Theiss J, Bobel M, Isselhard W, Pichlmaier H. [A system for a transanal endoscopic rectum operation]. Chirurg. 1984 Oct;55(10):677-80. No abstract available. German.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 6510078 (View on PubMed)

Allaix ME, Arezzo A, Caldart M, Festa F, Morino M. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal neoplasms: experience of 300 consecutive cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009 Nov;52(11):1831-6. doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181b14d2d.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19966628 (View on PubMed)

Ramirez JM, Aguilella V, Arribas D, Martinez M. Transanal full-thickness excision of rectal tumours: should the defect be sutured? a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis. 2002 Jan;4(1):51-55. doi: 10.1046/j.1463-1318.2002.00293.x.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12780656 (View on PubMed)

Gallagher EJ, Bijur PE, Latimer C, Silver W. Reliability and validity of a visual analog scale for acute abdominal pain in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2002 Jul;20(4):287-90. doi: 10.1053/ajem.2002.33778.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12098173 (View on PubMed)

Festen S, van Hoogstraten MJ, van Geloven AA, Gerhards MF. Treatment of grade III and IV haemorrhoidal disease with PPH or THD. A randomized trial on postoperative complications and short-term results. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009 Dec;24(12):1401-5. doi: 10.1007/s00384-009-0803-2.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19798507 (View on PubMed)

Todd KH, Funk KG, Funk JP, Bonacci R. Clinical significance of reported changes in pain severity. Ann Emerg Med. 1996 Apr;27(4):485-9. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(96)70238-x.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 8604867 (View on PubMed)

Kelly AM. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg Med J. 2001 May;18(3):205-7. doi: 10.1136/emj.18.3.205.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11354213 (View on PubMed)

Burch J, Epstein D, Baba-Akbari A, Weatherly H, Fox D, Golder S, Jayne D, Drummond M, Woolacott N. Stapled haemorrhoidectomy (haemorrhoidopexy) for the treatment of haemorrhoids: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2008 Apr;12(8):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-193. doi: 10.3310/hta12080.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 18373905 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

TEMPEST

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.