ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01465945Updated Jul 22, 2014

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

An interventional study of Defect Unsutured and Defect Sutured in Post-operative Pain and Complications, sponsored by Dr. Carl J Brown. Completed at 3 sites in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2014-07-22.

Sponsored by Dr. Carl J Brown · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
50
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

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.

Read the detailed description

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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Post-operative Pain
  • Complications

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • TEM for rectal lesions
  • Sutured defect
  • Unsutured defect
03

In context

Pain, Postoperative

5,640 studies on the registry are indexed under Pain, Postoperative; 1,230 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 50 is below the median of 75 across 4,821 interventional studies indexed under Pain, Postoperative.

Browse Pain, Postoperative studies →

Lead sponsor

Dr. Carl J Brown is the lead sponsor of 2 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

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 for TEM and inclusion in the trial.

Exclusion criteria

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 (e.g. Prednisone, ,etc)
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

Immunosuppression

A weakened immune system. It can come from an illness, such as HIV or some blood cancers, or from medicines that turn the immune system down, for example after an organ transplant or for an autoimmune disease; steroids at higher doses count.

Read whether the line is about a condition or about medicines, and which medicines and doses it means.

HIV

The human immunodeficiency virus, which weakens the immune system.

Many studies now accept people whose HIV is controlled on treatment, judged by the viral load and the CD4 count. Check the limits this study sets.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
50 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Other
    Rectal Defect Sutured

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

    Procedure: Defect Sutured

  • Other
    Rectal Defect Unsutured

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

    Procedure: Defect Unsutured

Interventions

  • ProcedureDefect Unsutured

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

  • ProcedureDefect Sutured

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

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Postoperative Pain

    As an ancillary measure, all patients will be prescribed 30 tablets of either Tylenol#3 or Tramacet as as their primary postoperative analgesic.

    Time frame: 1day after surgery

Secondary outcomes

  1. Complications

    includes bleeding( defined as hemoglobin drop of 20g/L from preoperative and either transfusion, readmission to hospital, or surgical or endoscopic intervention), infection (peritonitis or pelvic pain and either fever \>37.9 degC or WBC \> 11 X 10\^9 c/L), and readmission to hospital for any reason.

    Time frame: within 30 days of surgery

07

Study locations

3 sites
  • Saint Paul's Hospital
    Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 1Y6, Canada
  • Vancouver General Hospital
    Winnipeg, Manitoba V8Z 6R5, Canada
  • The Ottawa Hospital
    Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada
08

References and documents

Publications

  • McCourt M, Armitage J, Monson JR. Rectal cancer. Surgeon. 2009 Jun;7(3):162-9. doi: 10.1016/s1479-666x(09)80040-1. PubMed 19580180 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 6510078 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 19966628 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 12780656 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 12098173 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 19798507 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 8604867 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 11354213 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 18373905 ↗
09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
Not marked actual or estimatedDates not marked actual or estimated

The record gives a start of Mar 2012, a primary completion of Oct 2013 and a completion of Oct 2013. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Oct 31, 2011
First posted
Nov 6, 2011
Start
Mar 2012
Primary completionActual
Oct 2013
CompletionActual
Oct 2013
Last update
Jul 22, 2014
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 22, 2014, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01465945
Lead sponsor
Dr. Carl J Brown
Collaborators
Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons
Responsible party
Dr. Carl J Brown (Head, Division of General Surgery, clinical assistant professor of surgery at University of British Columbia, St. Paul's Hospital, Canada) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
Nov 6, 2011
Start date
Mar 2012
Primary completion
Oct 2013
Completion
Oct 2013
Last update
Jul 22, 2014

Study contacts

Carl J Brown, MD, MSc
principal investigator · Saint Paul's Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2014. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion