An international multicentre prospective audit of elective rectal cancer surgery; operative approach versus outcome, including transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME)

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing robotic total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

The best approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) remains controversial. Two recently described approaches are robotic TME (RTME) and transanal TME (TaTME). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes between robotic surgery and TaTME in patients undergoing rectal cancer resection.

METHODS

We structured this systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines 2020 and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines. An electronic search of relevant literature was conducted on 20 May 2023. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023435259).

RESULTS

Eleven eligible nonrandomised studies were included in this study. The study included 2796 patients (RTME = 1800; TaTME = 996). The RTME group had a higher rate of complete TME. However, no significant differences were observed in mortality, morbidity, severe complications, operative time, conversion rate, anastomotic leak, hospital stay, CRM-positive resection margin, distal resection margin, number of harvested lymph nodes, abdominoperineal resection (APR) rate, or local recurrence between the RTME and TaTME groups.

CONCLUSION

The RTME technique may ensure a higher rate of complete TME than TaTME. However, no significant differences were observed in most postoperative outcomes and oncological safety between the RTME and TaTME groups. Evidence does not conclusively favor one technique over the other, highlighting the need for additional randomized controlled trials to better define their roles in rectal cancer surgery.

Minimally Invasive Rectal Surgery: Current Status and Future Perspectives in the Era of Digital Surgery

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive approaches in rectal surgery have changed the landscape of surgical interventions, impacting both malignant and benign pathologies. The dynamic nature of rectal cancer treatment owes much to innovations in surgical techniques, reflected in the expanding literature on available treatment modalities. Local excision, facilitated by minimally invasive surgery, offers curative potential for patients with early T1 rectal cancers and favorable pathologic features. For more complex cases, laparoscopic and robotic surgery have demonstrated significant efficacy and provided precise, durable outcomes while reducing perioperative morbidity and enhancing postoperative recovery. Additionally, advancements in imaging, surgical instrumentation, and enhanced recovery protocols have further optimized patient care. The integration of multidisciplinary care has also emerged as a cornerstone of treatment, emphasizing collaboration among surgeons, oncologists, and radiologists to deliver personalized, evidence-based care. This narrative review aims to elucidate current minimally invasive surgical techniques and approaches for rectal pathologies, spanning benign and malignant conditions, while also exploring future directions in the field, including the potential role of artificial intelligence and next-generation robotic platforms.

A Systematic Review of Comparative Effectiveness of Interventions for Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Impacts on Bowel Function and Quality of Life

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a common complication following sphincter-preserving surgical resection for rectal cancer, characterized by symptoms such as fecal incontinence, urgency, and altered bowel habits, which significantly affect patients' quality of life. This cluster of symptoms not only limits their day-to-day physical activity but also has a debilitating effect on their emotional and mental well-being, undermining their integration and overall psychological health. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of invasive and non-invasive interventions for LARS, including pelvic floor rehabilitation, transanal irrigation, and various surgical options such as sacral neuromodulation and stoma formation, either as part of primary surgery or as a definitive treatment option for refractory cases. We systematically searched relevant databases for studies published in the last decade, focusing on adult patients diagnosed with LARS post-low anterior resection (LAR), with outcomes assessed through bowel function and quality of life metrics. The review identified six studies that met our eligibility criteria; a pooled cohort of 794 patients was identified, with sample sizes ranging from 37 to 430 participants. Our analysis revealed that pelvic floor rehabilitation significantly improves bowel function and quality of life in patients with LARS; yet, the optimal management approach remains unclear due to variability in patient responses. These findings highlight the inherent complexity and heterogeneity of LARS management, underscoring the necessity for multifaceted and individualized treatment strategies. Although pelvic floor rehabilitation shows promise, especially among motivated patients, its long-term sustainability remains uncertain. Surgical options are typically reserved for severe cases and carry significant risks and psychological impacts. For patients identified as being at high risk for LARS, treatment options must be considered and discussed at an earlier phase of their care. Our review concludes with the need for a tailored, patient-centered approach to managing LARS, highlighting the importance of ongoing research to fill existing evidence gaps. There is a need for translational research across various treatment modalities, comparing their effects, cost-effectiveness, implementation strategies, and the consequent effects on patients' quality of life and mental health.

Anastomotic leak after manual circular stapled left-sided bowel surgery: analysis of technology-, disease-, and patient-related factors

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak rates after colorectal surgery remain high. In most left-sided colon and rectal resection surgeries, a circular stapler is utilized to create the primary bowel anastomosis. However, it remains unclear whether a relationship between circular stapler technology and anastomotic leak in left-sided colorectal surgery exists.

METHODS

A post-hoc analysis was conducted using a prospectively collected data set of patients from the 2017 European Society of Coloproctology snapshot audit who underwent elective left-sided resection (left hemicolectomy, sigmoid colectomy, or rectal resection) with a manual circular stapled anastomosis. Rates of anastomotic leak and unplanned intensive care unit stay in association with manual circular stapling were assessed. Patient-, disease-, geographical-, and surgeon-related factors as well as stapler brand were explored using multivariable regression models to identify predictors of adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

Across 3305 procedures, 8.0% of patients had an anastomotic leak and 2.1% had an unplanned intensive care unit stay. Independent predictors of anastomotic leak were male sex, minimal-access surgery converted to open surgery, and anastomosis height C11 (lower third rectum) (all P < 0.050). Independent predictors of unplanned intensive care unit stay were minimal-access surgery converted to open surgery and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade IV (all P < 0.050). Stapler device brand was not a predictor of anastomotic leak or unplanned intensive care unit stay in multivariable regression analysis. There were no differences in rates of anastomotic leak and unplanned intensive care unit stay according to stapler head diameter, geographical region, or surgeon experience.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing left-sided bowel anastomosis, choice of manual circular stapler, in terms of manufacturer or head diameter, is not associated with rates of anastomotic leak and unplanned intensive care unit stay.

Digestive and breast cancer patients managed during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic: Short and middle term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Spain lasted from middle March to the end of June 2020. Spanish population was subjected to lockdown periods and scheduled surgeries were discontinued or reduced during variable periods. In our centre, we managed patients previously and newly diagnosed with cancer. We established a strategy based on limiting perioperative social contacts, preoperative screening (symptoms and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction) and creating separated in-hospital COVID-19-free pathways for non-infected patients. We also adopted some practice modifications (surgery in different facilities, changes in staff and guidelines, using continuously changing personal protective equipment…), that supposed new inconveniences.

AIM

To analyse cancer patients with a decision for surgery managed during the first wave, focalizing on outcomes and pandemic-related modifications.

METHODS

We prospectively included adults with a confirmed diagnosis of colorectal, oesophago-gastric, liver-pancreatic or breast cancer with a decision for surgery, regardless of whether they ultimately underwent surgery. We analysed short-term outcomes [30-d postoperative morbimortality and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection] and outcomes after 3 years (adjuvant therapies, oncological events, death, SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination). We also investigated modifications to usual practice.

RESULTS

From 96 included patients, seven didn't receive treatment that period and four never (3 due to COVID-19). Operated patients: 28 colon and 21 rectal cancers; laparoscopy 53.6%/90.0%, mortality 3.57%/0%, major complications 7.04%/25.00%, anastomotic leaks 0%/5.00%, 3-years disease-free survival (DFS) 82.14%/52.4% and overall survival (OS) 78.57%/76.2%. Six liver metastases and six pancreatic cancers: no mortality, one major complication, three grade A/B liver failures, one bile leak; 3-year DFS 0%/33.3% and OS 50.0%/33.3% (liver metastases/pancreatic carcinoma). 5 gastric and 2 oesophageal tumours: mortality 0%/50%, major complications 0%/100%, anastomotic leaks 0%/100%, 3-year DFS and OS 66.67% (gastric carcinoma) and 0% (oesophagus). Twenty breast cancer without deaths/major complications; 3-year OS 100% and DFS 85%. Nobody contracted SARS-CoV-2 postoperatively. COVID-19 pandemic-related changes: 78.2% treated in alternative buildings, 43.8% waited more than 4 weeks, two additional colostomies and fewer laparoscopies.

CONCLUSION

Some patients lost curative-intent surgery due to COVID-19 pandemic. Despite practice modifications and 43.8% delays higher than 4 weeks, surgery was resumed with minimal changes without impacting outcomes. Clean pathways are essential to continue surgery safely.

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres

BACKGROUND

The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres.

METHODS

All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan.

RESULTS

Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024.

CONCLUSION

Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

Patient Reported Outcomes following Cancer of the Rectum (PROCaRe): protocol of a prospective multicentre international study

PURPOSE

Rectal cancer surgery presents challenges in achieving good oncological results and preserving functional outcomes. Different surgical approaches, including open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal techniques, have been employed, but there is a lack of consensus on the optimal approach, particularly in terms of functional results. This study aims to assess bowel function and to compare outcomes of patients that had undergone surgery for mid-low rectal cancer across different surgical approaches.

METHOD

This is an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study. Inclusion criteria are patients diagnosed with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection, eligible for different surgical approaches for total mesorectal excision (TME). Data will be collected using validated questionnaires assessing bowel, sexual and urinary function, and quality of life (QOL). Secondary outcomes include short-term postoperative results. Data will be collected at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after index surgery or stoma reversal surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide insights into the impact of different approaches for TME on bowel, sexual and urinary function, and overall QOL of patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery. The findings will provide important information to optimise the surgical strategy and to improve patient care in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04936581 (registered 23 June 2021).

IDEAL Stage 2a/b prospective cohort study of transanal transection and single-stapled anastomosis for rectal cancer

AIM

There are several anastomotic techniques available to facilitate restorative rectal cancer surgery after total mesorectal excision (TME), including double-stapled anastomosis (DST) and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA). However, to date no one technique is superior with regard to anastomotic leakage (AL) or functional outcomes. Transanal transection single-stapled anastomosis (TTSS) aims to overcome some of the technical challenges and offer comparable clinical and functional outcomes to traditional anastomotic techniques. The aim of this study was to explore the role of TTSS in modern rectal cancer surgery and to provide comparative clinical and functional outcome data with DST and CAA.

METHOD

A prospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the safety and clinical and patient-reported outcomes associated with the TTSS procedure. All patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with an anastomosis performed within 6 cm of the anal verge between January 2016 and April 2021 were prospectively enrolled into this study. Clinical and patient-reported outcome data, including low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) assessment, were collected. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage within 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 275 patients participated in this study, with 70 (25%) patients undergoing a TTSS, 110 (40%) undergoing a DST and 95 (35%) undergoing a CAA. Patients undergoing a CAA had more distal tumours than those having a TTSS or DST, with a median tumour height of 5, 7 and 9 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. We observed a statistically significant reduction in AL in the TTSS group compared with the DST group, with rates of 8.6% versus 20.9% (p = 0.028). There was no difference in LARS scores between patients undergoing TTSS and DST (p = 0.228), while patients with a CAA had worse LARS scores than TTSS patients (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

TTSS is a technically safe and feasible anastomotic technique in rectal cancer surgery as an alternative to DST and CAA. Its advantages over DST are a reduced AL rate and, over CAA, improved function. It should therefore be considered as an alternative technique to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes in restorative rectal cancer surgery.

Oncological monitoring after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND

The surgical treatment of choice for rectal neoplasia is total mesorectal excision (TME). The transanal approach enables a better approach in male and obese patients and/or those with a narrow pelvis and in patients with small tumors. Short-term results are comparable with those for laparoscopy or the open approach, but the medium- and long-term oncological data are sparse. The aim of the present study was to evaluate our early experience with transanal TME (TaTME).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted on patients who underwent TaTME at our center between August 2013 and April 2017 with a follow-up ≥ 3 years. Histopathology, complications, mortality, neoplastic recurrence and disease-free survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred patients (68 men and 32 women,, median age 66.8 years [range 29.6-91.2 years]) were included. There were 67 T3 cases (67%) with 74 N0 cases (74%), the mesorectal quality was graded optimal for 87.6% and only 2 cases of radial margin involvement were detected (2%). The median follow-up period was 47.6 months (range 11.8-78.9 months). Eighteen cases of recurrence were diagnosed, of which 3 (3%) recurred locally with an average disease-free period of 43.1 months. Overall survival was 80% and mortality due to progression of disease was 13%.

CONCLUSIONS

TaTME is a safe surgical procedure with surgical, anatomopathological and oncological results at 3 years (medium-term) comparable with those for the laparoscopic and open approaches. Better monitoring is required with studies of the long-term functional and quality of life outcomes, i.e., at 5 or 10 years.

Recurrence following transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a monocentric retrospective series of technically difficult cases

PURPOSE

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been proposed to overcome surgical difficulties encountered during rectal resection, especially for patients having high body mass index or low rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate oncologic outcomes following TaTME.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all consecutive patients with rectal cancer who had a TaTME from 2013 to 2019. The main outcome was the incidence of locoregional recurrence by the end of the follow-up period.

RESULTS

Among a total of 81 patients, 96.3% were male, and their mean age was 63±9 years. The mean body mass index was 30.3±5.7 kg/m2, and the median distance from tumor to anal verge was 5.0 cm (interquartile range [IQR], 4.0-6.0 cm). Most patients had a low anterior resection performed (n=80, 98.8%) with a diverting ileostomy (n=64, 79.0%). Distal and circumferential resection margins were positive in 2.5% and 6.2% of patients, respectively. Total mesorectal excision was complete or near complete in 95.1% of patients. A successful resection was achieved in 72 patients (88.9%). After a median follow-up of 27.5 months (IQR, 16.7-48.1 months), 4 patients (4.9%) experienced locoregional recurrence. Anastomotic leaks were observed in 21 patients (25.9%). At the end of the follow-up, 69 patients (85.2%) were stoma-free.

CONCLUSION

TaTME was associated with acceptable oncological outcomes, including low locoregional recurrence rates in selected patients with low rectal cancer. Although associated with a high incidence of postoperative morbidities, the use of TaTME enabled a high rate of successful sphincter-saving procedures in selected patients who posed a technical challenge.

Simple transanal total mesorectal resection versus laparoscopic transabdominal total mesorectal resection for the treatment of low rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective case-control study

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of simple TaTNE in the treatment of low rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic transabdominal TME.

Methods

We collected patients with low rectal cancer admitted to our hospital between January 2019 and November 2021 who received simple TaTME or laparoscopic transabdominal TME. The main outcome was the integrity of the TME specimen. Secondary outcomes were the number of lymph nodes dissected, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, surgical conversion rate, Specimen resection length, circumferential margin (CRM), and distal resection margin (DRM), complication rate. In addition, the Wexner score and LARS score of fecal incontinence were performed in postoperative follow-up.

Results

Pathological tissues were successfully resected in all patients. all circumferential margins of the specimen were negative. Specimen resection length was not statistically significant (9.94 ± 2.85 vs. 8.90 ± 2.49, P > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in group A (n = 0) was significantly lower than that in group B (n = 3) (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in operation time between group A and group B (296 ± 60.36 vs. 305 ± 58.28, P > 0.05). Among the patients with follow-up time less than 1 year, there was no significant difference in Wexner score and LARS score between group A and group B (P > 0.05). However, in patients who were followed up for more than 1 year, the Wexner score in group A (9.25 ± 2.73) was significantly lower than that in group B (17.36 ± 10.95) and was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

For radical resection of low rectal cancer, Simple TaTME resection may be as safe and effective as laparoscopic transabdominal TME, and the long-term prognosis may be better.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer

Background

Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision (MiTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular trends in mid and low rectal cancer. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MiTME and TaTME of mid and low-rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of MiTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer.

Methods

We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on MiTME (robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision) and TaTME (transanal total mesorectal excision). We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374141).

Results

There are 11010 patients including 39 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent MiTME had no statistical difference in operation time (SMD -0.14; CI -0.31 to 0.33; I²⁼84.7%, P=0.116), estimated blood loss (SMD 0.05; CI -0.05 to 0.14; I²⁼48%, P=0.338), postoperative hospital stay (RR 0.08; CI -0.07 to 0.22; I²⁼0%, P=0.308), over complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.88 to 1.08; I²⁼25.4%, P=0.644), intraoperative complications (RR 0.94; CI 0.69 to 1.29; I²⁼31.1%, P=0.712), postoperative complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.87 to 1.11; I²⁼16.1%, P=0.789), anastomotic stenosis (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I²⁼7.4%, P=0.564), wound infection (RR 1.08; CI 0.65 to 1.81; I²⁼1.9%, P=0.755), circumferential resection margin (RR 1.10; CI 0.91 to 1.34; I²⁼0%, P=0.322), distal resection margin (RR 1.49; CI 0.73 to 3.05; I²⁼0%, P=0.272), major low anterior resection syndrome (RR 0.93; CI 0.79 to 1.10; I²⁼0%, P=0.386), lymph node yield (SMD 0.06; CI -0.04 to 0.17; I²⁼39.6%, P=0.249), 2-year DFS rate (RR 0.99; CI 0.88 to 1.11; I²⁼0%, P = 0.816), 2-year OS rate (RR 1.00; CI 0.90 to 1.11; I²⁼0%, P = 0.969), distant metastasis rate (RR 0.47; CI 0.17 to 1.29; I²⁼0%, P = 0.143), and local recurrence rate (RR 1.49; CI 0.75 to 2.97; I²⁼0%, P = 0.250). However, patients who underwent MiTME had fewer anastomotic leak rates (SMD -0.38; CI -0.59 to -0.17; I²⁼19.0%, P<0.0001).

Conclusion

This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of MiTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid to low-rectal cancer through meta-analysis. There is no difference between the two except for patients with MiTME who have a lower anastomotic leakage rate, which provides some evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022374141.

The snapshot audit methodology: design, implementation and analysis of prospective observational cohort studies in surgery

PURPOSE

For some surgical conditionns and scientific questions, the "real world" effectiveness of surgical patient care may be better explored using a multi-institutional time-bound observational cohort assessment approach (termed a "snapshot audit") than by retrospective review of administrative datasets or by prospective randomized control trials. We discuss when this might be the case, and present the key features of developing, deploying, and assessing snapshot audit outcomes data.

METHODS

A narrative review of snapshot audit methodology was generated using the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) guideline. Manuscripts were selected from domains including: audit design and deployment, statistical analysis, surgical therapy and technique, surgical outcomes, diagnostic testing, critical care management, concomitant non-surgical disease, implementation science, and guideline compliance.

RESULTS

Snapshot audits all conform to a similar structure: being time-bound, non-interventional, and multi-institutional. A successful diverse steering committee will leverage expertise that includes clinical care and data science, coupled with librarian services. Pre-published protocols (with specified aims and analyses) greatly helps site recruitment. Mentored trainee involvement at collaborating sites should be encouraged through manuscript contributorship. Current funding principally flows from medical professional organizations.

CONCLUSION

The snapshot audit approach to assessing current care provides insights into care delivery, outcomes, and guideline compliance while generating testable hypotheses.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

Transanal down-to-up dissection of the distal rectum as a viable approach to achieve total mesorectal excision in laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer near the anus: a study of short- and long-term outcomes of 123 consecutive patients from a single Japanese institution

Background

In rectal cancer (RC) surgery, the complexity of total mesorectal excision (TME) in laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgery (lap-SPS) for RC near the anus has been a critical issue. Recently, technical assistance via the anus for complete TME has been receiving attention. This study aimed at clarifying the transanal down-to-up dissection viability for achieving TME in lap-SPS for RC near the anus.

Methods

We evaluated surgical and oncological outcomes of a total of 123 consecutive patients undergoing either a transanal rectal dissection (TARD) under direct vision mobilizing the most difficult portion of TME via the anus or the transanal TME by using an endoscopic system (TaTME) for achieving TME in lap-SPS for RC near the anus between January 2006 and February 2021.

Results

A total of 123 consecutive patients (83 men) with a median age of 66 years (range 33–86 years) were included. TARD and TaTME were performed for 50 (40.7%) and for 73 (59.3%) patients, respectively. Preoperative treatment was performed for 40 (32.5%) patients, resulting in a complete pathological response in 5 (12.5%) patients. Intersphincteric resection was performed significantly more in the TARD group (p<0.001). Although the TaTME group needed a longer operative time at the transanal portion (p<0.001), the median blood loss was lower (p<0.001). Postoperative complications with the Clavien–Dindo classification grade ≧2 developed in 52 (42.3%) patients. Urinary dysfunction and stoma-related complications were found most frequently. More patients needing medication for urinary dysfunction were found in the TARD group, but a significant difference was not observed (10.0% vs. 6.8%, p=0.526). The quality of TME was good for almost all patients. Recurrence developed in 18 (14.6%) patients. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) rates in 123 patients were 95.8% and 88.8%, respectively. The 5-year OS and RFS between the two groups were comparable.

Conclusions

Our data suggested that a transanal down-to-up dissection of the distal rectum might be a viable approach in lap-SPS for RC near the anus. Further studies are needed to examine the differences between TARD and TaTME.

Challenges and Learning Curves in Adopting TaTME and Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Cusum Analysis

Simple Summary

Rectal cancer surgery remains a challenge and information about the learning curve in adopting new techniques is lacking. This paper analyzes our experience in taTME (since 2015) and robotic surgery (since 2018) at a fully accredited referral center for the treatment of rectal cancer in Spain. In this retrospective study, we aim to analyze the learning curves for taTME and robot-assisted rectal procedures in the incorporation of these platforms into our practice. We sought to describe our team’s experience in incorporating these techniques and to analyze the difficulties that we have had. Hoping that sharing our experience can help other groups improve their results during the difficult initial phase of incorporating new techniques.

Abstract

New techniques are being developed to improve the results of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. This paper analyzes the learning curves for transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and robot-assisted surgery in our colorectal surgery department. We analyzed retrospectively data from patients undergoing curative and elective surgery for rectal cancer ≤12 cm from the anal verge. We excluded extended surgeries. We used cumulative sum (CUSUM) curve analysis to identify inflection points. Between 2015 and 2021, 588 patients underwent surgery for rectal cancer at our center: 67 taTME and 79 robot-assisted surgeries. To overcome the operative time learning curve, 14 cases were needed for taTME and 53 for robot-assisted surgery. The morbidity rate started to decrease after the 17th case in taTME and after the 49th case in robot-assisted surgery, but it is much less abrupt in robot-assisted group. During the initial learning phase, the rate of anastomotic leakage was higher in taTME (35.7% vs. 5.7%). Two Urological lesions occurred in taTME but not in robot-assisted surgery. The conversion rate was higher in robot-assisted surgery (1.5% vs. 10.1%). Incorporating new techniques is complex and entails a transition period. In our experience, taTME involved a higher rate of serious complications than robot-assisted surgery during initial learning period but required a shorter learning curve.

Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer

Aim

Sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer include low anterior and intersphincteric resection. In low anterior resection, the distal rectum is divided by a transabdominal approach, which is technically demanding. In intersphincteric resection, a perineal approach is used. We aimed to evaluate whether robotic-assisted surgery is technically superior to laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer. We compared the frequency of low anterior resection in cases of sphincter-preserving operations.

Method

We investigated 183 patients who underwent sphincter-preserving robotic-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer (lower border within 5 cm of the anal verge) between April 2010 and March 2020. The frequency of low anterior resection was compared between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries. The clinicopathological factors associated with an increase in performing low anterior resection were analyzed by multivariate analyses.

Results

Overall, 41 (22.4%) and 142 (77.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. Low anterior resection was done significantly more frequently in robotic-assisted surgery (67.6%) than in laparoscopic surgery (48.8%) (P = 0.04). Multivariate analyses showed that tumor distance from the anal verge (P < 0.01) and robotic-assisted surgery (P = 0.02) were significantly associated with an increase in the performance of low anterior resection. The rate of postoperative complications or pathological results was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic-assisted surgery significantly increased the frequency of low anterior resection in sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer. Robotic-assisted surgery has technical superiority over laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer treatment.

Pathologic outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 26 studies

PURPOSE

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has the potential advantages for patients with low rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to identify the pathologic outcomes between the TaTME and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) in rectal cancer.

METHODS

The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE with English language restriction. The primary endpoint was circumferential margin (CRM), and the secondary endpoints were distal resection margin (DRM), mesorectal excision quality, and harvested lymph nodes.

RESULTS

Our research identified 1090 articles, and 26 studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The positive CRM was lower in the TaTME than the LaTME (OR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.98; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the positive CRM between the TaTME and LaTME published after 2016 (OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.12; P = 0.19), prospective study (OR = 2.70; 95% CI = 0.51, 14.24; P = 0.24), respective study (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.55, 1.04; P = 0.09), BMI > 26 (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.63, 1.58; P = 0.98), or sample size > 100 (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.23; P = 0.38). In addition, there was no significant difference observed between the TaTME and LaTME in terms of DRM, mesorectum incompleteness, and harvested lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

The TaTME is associated with lower positive CRM compared to the LaTME and similar pathologic outcomes including DRM, harvested lymph node, and mesorectal excision quality.

A Way to Start Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Introduction The optimal rectal cancer care is achieved by a multidisciplinary approach, with a high-quality surgical resection, with complete mesorectal excision and adequate margins. New approaches like the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) aim to achieve these goals, maximizing the sphincter preservation ratio, with good oncologic and functional results. This report describes a way to implement TaTME without a proctor, presents the first case series of this approach in a center experienced in rectal cancer, and compares the results with those of the international literature.

Methods We performed a retrospective study of the first 10 consecutive patients submitted to TaTME for rectal cancer at our institution. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, pathological specimen quality and local recurrence rate. The results and performance were compared with the outcomes of a known structured program with proctorship and with the largest meta-analysis on this topic.

Results All patients had locally advanced cancer; therefore, all underwent neoadjuvant therapy. A total of 30% had postoperative complications, without mortality or re-admissions. In comparison with the structured training program referred, no differences were found in postoperative complications and reintervention rates, resulting in a similar quality of resection. Comparing these results with those of the largest meta-analysis on the subject, no differences in the postoperative complication rates were found, and very similar outcomes regarding anastomotic leaks and oncological quality of resection were registered.

Conclusion The results of this study validate the safety and effectiveness of our pathway regarding the implementation of the TaTME approach, highlighting the fact that it should be done in a center with proficiency in minimally invasive rectal surgery.

Structured training curriculums for transanal total mesorectal excision in China: refinement is needed

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is an alternative for mid-low rectal cancer. In China, this procedure has been performed in high-volume centers with structured training curriculums. The efficacy of the TaTME structured training curriculums in China is still unclear. This multicenter study aimed to explore the effectiveness of the structured training curriculums in China.

METHODS

Seven high-volume centers in China participated in this study. The first 25 patients who underwent TaTME in each center were enrolled. In the cohort, patients were divided into 3 groups. The first 5 procedures (group 1) were performed under proctoring according to the requirement of structured training curriculums. The latter 20 cases without proctoring were split into 2 groups (10 cases in each group, groups 2 and 3) according to the order of operation date. The baseline characteristics, perioperative complications, and pathological outcomes were compared between groups 1 and 2, as well as between groups 2 and 3.

RESULTS

Symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL) occurred in 18.6% of the patients in group 2 compared with 5.7% in group 1 (P1=0.08) and 5.0% in group 3 (P2=0.04). Seven (11.3%) patients in group 2 developed defecation disorders whereas no patients had this complication in group 3 (P2=0.02). Compared with group 2, the operative time was shorter (235 vs. 223 min, P2=0.40), while the rates of intraoperative complications (15.7% vs. 5.7%, P2=0.10), postoperative complications (31.3% vs. 25.7%, P2=0.06), AL (20.0% vs. 8.6%, P2=0.04), and positive distal resection margin (DRM) (7.5% vs. 2.9%, P2=0.27) were lower in group 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of the structured training curriculums was acceptable but needed further improvement. The prevalence of anastomosis-related complications and the quality control of specimens are still not optimal, and measures for refinement (for example, more cases under proctoring) are needed in the curriculums.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) with delayed coloanal anastomosis versus TaTME with immediate coloanal anastomosis and temporary diversion in middle and low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) avoids the difficulty of laparoscopic dissection of the lower part of the rectum. The need for stoma is associated with many stoma-related complications. The objective was to compare TaTME with immediate coloanal anastomosis and protective ileostomy (TaTME-IA) versus Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis (TaTME-TC).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study included patients with low rectal cancer at least 1 cm above the top of the anal sphincter. Patients had either TaTME-IA or TaTME-TC. Primary outcome measures were anastomotic and stoma-related complications. Secondary outcomes included rate of permanent stomas, local recurrence, continence, and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

TaTME-IA was done in 25 patients versus 20 who had TaTME-TC. TaTME-IA had significantly longer mean operative time (p = 0.04) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (4.5 vs. 11.4 days; p = 0.0001) compared to TaTME-TC. Anastomotic leak was reported in two patients of TaTME-IA versus one patient of TaTME-TC (p = 0.77). Anastomotic stenosis was reported in one patient in each group. No significant difference between groups as regard continence, local recurrence, and QOL.

CONCLUSION

TaTME-TC is a safe option that can be offered for patients with low rectal cancer who refuse or are not amenable to a temporary stoma. Anastomotic complications were similar in both groups. LOS was much longer in TaTME-TC, however, it avoids stoma complications. Both groups had similar functional oncologic outcomes and QOL.

Quality of Life in Patients With Rectal Resections and End-to-End Primary Anastomosis Using a Standardized Perioperative Pathway

Objectives: Lower rectal resection is associated with a high rate of postoperative complications and, therefore, adversely impacts the postoperative health-related quality of life (QoL). Though sporadically practiced in different centers, there is no standard perioperative protocol for the management of patients with rectal growths. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes after low rectal resections followed by an end-to-end-reconstruction and temporary covering ileostomy using a multidisciplinary fail-safe-concept.

Methods: Between 2015 and 2020, we evaluated patient reported outcomes after open and laparoscopic rectal resections with end-to-end reconstruction with a primary straight anastomosis using a standardized perioperative pathway All patients with stoma were excluded from the study. The data for the QoL of patients was collected using the established Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS)-score and the EORTC-C30 and CR-29 questionnaires at a single postoperative timepoint.

Results: We recruited 78 stoma-free patients for this analysis. Of 78 patients included in the study, 87.2% were operated laparoscopically and the mean global health status was 67.95 points, while a major LARS was detected in 48 (61.5%) patients. No anastomotic leakage (AL) occurred within the study cohort. There was no significant change in the LARS-score or the global health status depending on the follow-up-period.

Conclusion: This study shows that good QoL and functional outcomes with no AL are achievable following end-to-end straight anastomosis using a standardized perioperative surgical fail-safe protocol procedure.

Local recurrence of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre cohort study evaluating the initial cases

PURPOSE

Evidence regarding local recurrence rates in the initial cases after implementation of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision is limited. This study aims to describe local recurrence rates in four large Dutch centres during their initial cases.

METHODS

Four large Dutch centres started with the implementation of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision in respectively 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016. Patients who underwent robot-assisted total mesorectal excision with curative intent in an elective setting for rectal carcinoma defined according to the sigmoid take-off were included. Overall survival, disease-free survival, systemic recurrence, and local recurrence were assessed at 3 years postoperatively. Subsequently, outcomes between the initial 10 cases, cases 11-40, and the subsequent cases per surgeon were compared using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 531 patients were included. Median follow-up time was 32 months (IQR: 19-50]. During the initial 10 cases, overall survival was 89.5%, disease-free survival was 73.1%, and local recurrence was 4.9%. During cases 11-40, this was 87.7%, 74.1%, and 6.6% respectively. Multivariable Cox regression did not reveal differences in local recurrence between the different case groups.

CONCLUSION

Local recurrence rate during the initial phases of implantation of robot-assisted total mesorectal procedures is low. Implementation of the robot-assisted technique can safely be performed, without additional cases of local recurrence during the initial cases, if performed by surgeons experienced in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

Intraoperative colon perfusion assessment using multispectral imaging

In colorectal surgery an anastomosis performed using poorly-perfused, ischaemic bowel segments may result in a leak and consequent morbidity. Traditional measures of perfusion assessment rely on clinical judgement and are mainly subjective, based on tissue appearance, leading to variability between clinicians. This paper describes a multispectral imaging (MSI) laparoscope that can derive quantitative measures of tissue oxygen saturation (SO₂ ). The system uses a xenon surgical light source and fast filter wheel camera to capture eight narrow waveband images across the visible range in approximately 0.3 s. Spectral validation measurements were performed by imaging standardised colour tiles and comparing reflectance with ground truth spectrometer data. Tissue spectra were decomposed into individual contributions from haemoglobin, adipose tissue and scattering, using a previously-developed regression approach. Initial clinical results from seven patients undergoing colorectal surgery are presented and used to characterise measurement stability and reproducibility in vivo. Strategies to improve signal-to-noise ratio and correct for motion are described. Images of healthy bowel tissue (in vivo) indicate that baseline SO₂ is approximately 75 ± 6%. The SO₂ profile along a bowel segment following ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) shows a decrease from the proximal to distal end. In the clinical cases shown, imaging results concurred with clinical judgements of the location of well-perfused tissue. Adipose tissue, visibly yellow in the RGB images, is shown to surround the mesentery and cover some of the serosa. SO₂ in this tissue is consistently high, with mean value of 90%. These results show that MSI is a potential intraoperative guidance tool for assessment of perfusion. Mapping of SO₂ in the colon could be used by surgeons to guide choice of transection points and ensure that well-perfused tissue is used to form an anastomosis. The observation of high mesenteric SO₂ agrees with work in the literature and warrants further exploration. Larger studies incorporating with a wider cohort of clinicians will help to provide retrospective evidence of how this imaging technique may be able to reduce inter-operator variability.

One-Stage Total Laparoscopic Treatment for Colorectal Cancer With Synchronous Metastasis. Is It Safe and Feasible?

Liver is the main target organ for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases. It is estimated that ~25% of CRC patients have synchronous metastases at diagnosis, and about 60% of CRC patients will develop metastases during the follow up. Although several teams have performed simultaneous laparoscopic resections (SLR) of liver and colorectal lesions, the feasibility and safety of this approach is still widely debated and few studies on this topic are present in the literature. The purpose of this literature review is to understand the state of the art of SLR and to clarify the potential benefits and limitations of this approach. Several studies have shown that SLR can be performed safely and with short-term outcomes similarly to the separated procedures. Simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and hepatic resections combine the advantages of one stage surgery with those of laparoscopic surgery. Several reports compared the short-term outcomes of one stage laparoscopic resection with open resections and showed a similar or inferior amount of blood loss, a similar or lower complication rate, and a significant reduction of hospital stay for laparoscopic surgery respect to open surgery but much longer operating times for the laparoscopic technique. Few retrospective studies compared long term outcomes of laparoscopic one stage surgery with the outcomes of open one stage surgery and did not identify any differences about disease free survival and the overall survival. In conclusion, hepatic and colorectal SLR are a safe and effective approach characterized by less intraoperative blood loss, faster recovery of intestinal function, and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay. Moreover, laparoscopic approach is associated to lower rates of surgical complications without significant differences in the long-term outcomes compared to the open surgery.

Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Versus Transanal Low Anterior Resection: 3-Year Oncologic Results for a Population-Based Cohort in Experienced Centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision are the minimally invasive techniques used most for rectal cancer surgery. Because data regarding oncologic results are lacking, this study aimed to compare these three techniques while taking the learning curve into account.

METHODS

This retrospective population-based study cohort included all patients between 2015 and 2017 who underwent a low anterior resection at 11 dedicated centers that had completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) during a 3-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes were 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Cox-regression.

RESULTS

The 617 patients enrolled in the study included 252 who underwent a laparoscopic resection, 205 who underwent a robot-assisted resection, and 160 who underwent a transanal low anterior resection. The oncologic outcomes were equal between the three techniques. The 3-year OS rate was 90% for laparoscopic resection, 90.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 87.6% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year DFS rate was 77.8% for laparoscopic resection, 75.8% for robot-assisted resection, and 78.8% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year local recurrence rate was in 6.1% for laparoscopic resection, 6.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 5.7% for transanal procedures. Cox-regression did not show a significant difference between the techniques while taking confounders into account.

CONCLUSION

The oncologic results during the 3-year follow-up were good and comparable between laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal technique at experienced centers. These techniques can be performed safely in experienced hands.

Collaboration in colorectal surgical research

Surgical research has been under-powered, under-funded and under-delivered for decades. A solution may be to form large research collaborations and thereby enable implementation of successful interventional trials as well as robust international observational studies with thousands of patients. There are many such research collaborations in colorectal surgery, and in this paper we have highlighted the experiences from the West Midlands Research Collaborative (WMRC), the Scandinavian Surgical Outcomes Research Group (SSORG) and the European Society of Coloproctology. With active research networks, it is possible to deliver large, high-quality studies and provide high-level evidence for solving important clinical questions in an efficient and timely manner.

Meta-analysis of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a 'New Health Technology' assessment in South Korea

Purpose

Under the South Korea's unique health insurance structure, any new surgical technology must be evaluated first by the government in order to consider whether that particular technology can be applied to patients for further clinical trials as categorized as 'New Health Technology,' then potentially covered by the insurance sometime later. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer, activated by the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) TaTME committee.

Methods

We systematically searched Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane, and Korean databases (from their inception until August 31, 2019) for studies published that compare TaTME with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME). End-points included perioperative and pathological outcomes.

Results

Sixteen cohort studies (7 for case-matched studies) were identified, comprising 1,923 patients (938 TaTMEs and 985 LaTMEs). Regarding perioperative outcomes, the conversion rate was significantly lower in TaTME (risk ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.34; P < 0.001); whereas other perioperative outcomes were similar to LaTME. There were no statistically significant differences in pathological results between the 2 procedures.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis showed comparable results in preoperative and pathologic outcomes between TaTME and LaTME, and indicated the benefit of TaTME with low conversion. Extensive evaluations of well-designed, multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to come to unequivocal conclusions, but the results showed that TaTME is a potentially beneficial technique in some specific cases. This meta-analysis suggests that TaTME can be performed for rectal cancer patients as a 'New Health Technology' endorsed by NECA in South Korea.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer has important technical limitations. Robot-assisted and transanal TME (TaTME) may overcome these limitations, potentially leading to lower conversion rates and reduced morbidity. However, comparative data between the three approaches are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes for laparoscopic TME, robot-assisted TME and TaTME in expert centres.

METHODS

Patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between 2015 and 2017 in expert centres for laparoscopic, robot-assisted or TaTME were included. Outcomes for TME surgery performed by the specialized technique in the expert centres were compared after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was conversion rate. Secondary outcomes were morbidity and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1078 patients were included. In rectal cancer surgery in general, the overall rate of primary anastomosis was 39.4, 61.9 and 61.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME centres respectively (P < 0.001). For specialized techniques in expert centres excluding abdominoperineal resection (APR), the rate of primary anastomosis was 66.7 per cent in laparoscopic, 89.8 per cent in robot-assisted and 84.3 per cent in TaTME (P < 0.001). Conversion rates were 3.7 , 4.6 and 1.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME respectively (P = 0.134). The number of incomplete specimens, circumferential resection margin involvement rate and morbidity rates did not differ.

CONCLUSION

In the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer more primary anastomoses are created in robotic and TaTME expert centres.

Implementation barriers for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in rectal cancer surgery: a comparative analysis of compliance with colon cancer surgeries

We aim to analyze differences in compliance between colon and rectal cancer surgeries under Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for colorectal procedures, and to detect implementation barriers for rectal cancer surgeries. Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgeries under ERAS were case-matched based on gender, age, and P-POSSUM with an equal number of patients who underwent colonic surgeries. Achievements of ≥ 70% of ERAS items were considered an acceptable level of compliance. A multivariate analysis was carried out to identify independent risk factors for lower compliance. A total of 434 patients were included over a 5-year period. After matching, there were 111 patients in each group. Overall compliance was significantly lower in the rectal surgery group (73% vs 82%, p = 0.001). A good compliance rate differed from 55% in rectal vs 77.5% in colonic procedures (p = 0.000). We identified three independent risk factors for lower compliance rates: open surgical approach, the use of epidural catheter, and the presence of postoperative ileus. Our data showed that rectal cancer surgeries are more exigent to success on ERAS interventions when compared to colonic resections. There is a need to introduce specific modifications on the protocols for colorectal surgeries when applied to these particular procedures.

Mucosa plication reinforced colorectal anastomosis and trans-anal vacuum drainage: a pilot study with preliminary results

Dehiscence of colorectal anastomosis is a serious complication that is associated with increased mortality, impaired functional and oncological outcomes. The hypothesis was that anastomosis reinforcement and vacuum trans-anal drainage could eliminate some risk factors, such as mechanically stapled anastomosis instability and local infection. Patients with rectal cancer within 10 cm of the anal verge and low anterior resection with double-stapled technique were included consecutively. A stapler anastomosis was supplemented by trans-anal reinforcement and vacuum drainage using a povidone-iodine-soaked sponge. Modified reinforcement using a circular mucosa plication was developed and used. Patients were followed up by postoperative endoscopy and outcomes were acute leak rate, morbidity, and diversion rate. The procedure was successfully completed in 52 from 54 patients during time period January 2019–October 2020. The mean age of patients was 61 years (lower–upper quartiles 54–69 years). There were 38/52 (73%) males and 14/52 (27%) females; the neoadjuvant radiotherapy was indicated in a group of patients in 24/52 (46%). The mean level of anastomosis was 3.8 cm (lower–upper quartiles 3.00–4.88 cm). The overall morbidity was 32.6% (17/52) and Clavien–Dindo complications ≥ 3 grade appeared in 3/52 (5.7%) patients. No loss of anastomosis was recorded and no patient died postoperatively. The symptomatic anastomotic leak was recorded in 2 (3.8%) patients and asymptomatic blind fistula was recorded in one patient 1/52 (1.9%). Diversion ileostomy was created in 1/52 patient (1.9%). Reinforcement of double-stapled anastomosis using a circular mucosa plication with combination of vacuum povidone-iodine-soaked sponge drainage led to a low acute leak and diversion rate. This pilot study requires further investigation.

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.: Trial registration number is NCT04735107, date of registration February 2, 2021, registered retrospectively.

Beyond transanal total mesorectal excision: short-term outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision in locally advanced rectal cancer requiring resection beyond total mesorectal excision

AIM

The aim of this work was to define the role of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) requiring resection beyond the mesorectal plane.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective review of the outcomes of a case series of patients undergoing taTME for rectal cancer with mesorectal fascia or adjacent organ involvement.

RESULTS

Eleven patients (six men) underwent taTME for LARC requiring resection beyond total mesorectal excision (TME). All had a restorative procedure. The transabdominal approach was open in five and minimally invasive in six cases. All patients required the resection of at least one adjacent structure, including presacral fascia, internal iliac vessels, nerve roots, uterus, vagina or seminal vesicles. Four patients required a pelvic side-wall lymph node dissection and four had intraoperative radiotherapy. In all cases, the transanal approach was useful to disconnect the rectum distally, resect adjacent organs or control the R1 risk-point. Three patients had a complication of Clavien-Dindo grade III or above (one mechanical bowel obstruction, one pelvic collection and one urine sepsis). There were no anastomotic complications. Ten patients had an R0 resection. During a median follow-up of 11 (8.6-16) months there were no local recurrences, but two patients had distant metastases. During the study period, eight patients underwent closure of their stoma whilst the remaining three have had normal anastomotic assessments and will be closed in the future.

CONCLUSION

This early series shows that implementation of taTME for resections beyond TME may be feasible and safe in a highly selected setting.

Re-exploring the pelvic neuroanatomy from a new perspective and a potential guidance for TaTME: a "bottom-up" approach

Neuro-anatomy of the perineum has gained renewed attention due to its significance in the transanal procedures for rectal cancer (eg TaTME). Surgeons embarking on this technique must have sophisticated knowledge and a precise anatomical understanding of the perineum before proceeding with this reversed rectal approach. We report anatomical observations deriving from a relevant experience in the colorectal surgery field. The collective multicenter experience of the present study is clinically relevant and based on the rectal and transanal resections performed in colorectal centers of excellence from Greece, UK, and Italy over the last 10 years (2011-2020). From the original anatomical and intraoperative observations derived from collective cases operated by this multicenter group of colorectal surgical centers in three European countries, data were retrieved and analyzed in collaboration with specialist researchers of human anatomy and interpreted for their clinical significance and potential use for preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance during TaTME. This descriptive article demonstrates in detail the neurogenic pathways encountered in the perineum and pelvic cavity during transanal procedures. Specific anatomical and topographic implications are also included serving as a guide for colorectal surgeons to perform a nerve-sparing procedure. transanal approach for rectal excision offers new insights into the complex pelvic and perineal neuroanatomy while the procedure itself remains a challenge for surgeons. Preoperative anatomical planning and 3D reconstruction may help in anticipating technical difficulties, resulting in more precise surgical dissections and decreased postoperative complications.

Permanent stoma: a quality outcome in treatment of rectal cancer and its impact on length of stay

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify socioeconomic predictors of permanent stoma in rectal cancer treatment and examine its association with length of stay at the treatment facility.

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients who underwent elective surgery between January 2015 and December 2018 were identified from the Agency for Health Care Administration Florida Hospital Inpatient Discharge Dataset. Multivariate regression models were utilized to identify demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with receiving a permanent stoma as well as the associated length of stay of these patients.

RESULTS

Of 2630 rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer, 21% had a permanent stoma. The odds of receiving permanent stoma increased with higher Elixhauser score, metastatic disease, advanced age, having open surgery, residence in Southwest Florida, and having Medicaid insurance or no insurance/self-payers (p < 0.05). Patients with a permanent stoma had a significantly extended stay after surgery (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a permanent stoma following cancer resection were more likely to have open surgery, had more comorbidities, and had a longer length of stay. Having permanent stoma was higher in patients living in South West Florida, patients with Medicaid insurance, and in the uninsured. Additionally, the payer type significantly affected the length of stay.

Long-Term Anorectal Manometry Outcomes After Laparoscopic and Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

Background: During transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME), sustained dilation of the anal canal occurs, which can cause anatomical and functional damage to the sphincter complex. This study aimed to analyze the impact of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) and TaTME in anorectal sphincter function. Materials and Methods: An observational study was conducted comparing two cohorts of patients who underwent LaTME or TaTME for rectal cancer. The two groups were paired for comparison based on age, gender, and distance of the neoplasm to the anal margin. The anorectal function was assessed by manometry before surgery and at least 6 months after primary intervention or stoma closure. The intestinal function was assessed using the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. Results: Twenty-two patients were included. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups except for the time between surgery and testing. A decrease in the mean resting and squeeze pressures between pre- and postoperative manometry was observed in both the treatment groups, the difference being only significant in the squeeze pressure values (TaTME P = .003; LaTME P = .004). After surgery, squeeze pressure reduction correlated with a worsening of the LARS point count (rho 0.587; P = .004). The time elapsed since surgery was negatively correlated with the LARS point count (rho -0.696; P = .001) and the difference between pre- and postoperative mean squeeze pressures (rho -0.499; P = .018). Conclusion: Manometric findings after TME are comparable between the laparoscopic and the transanal approach. Deterioration of both anal sphincter function and LARS improves with time after surgery.

Evidence-Based Strategies to Promote Long-Term Cardiac Implant Site Health: Review of the Literature

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are commonly used nowadays. The association between CIED placement and infections is responsible for the high mortality and device explantation rate. Since CIED placement has increased in the past decade, CIED-related complications have risen. In order to reduce the CIED-related complications rate, the prevention of device infection represents the main goal. Over time, many different studies have proven the importance of the measures to prevent CIED-related infections. This review aims to collect the actual recommendations for CIED infection prevention, providing an overview of the main evidence-based strategies.

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

AIM

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

METHOD

This was an international cohort study of patients undergoing elective resection of colon or rectal cancer without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Centres entered data from their first recorded case of COVID-19 until 19 April 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, postoperative SARS-CoV-2 and a comparison with prepandemic European Society of Coloproctology cohort data.

RESULTS

From 2073 patients in 40 countries, 1.3% (27/2073) had a defunctioning stoma and 3.0% (63/2073) had an end stoma instead of an anastomosis only. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8% (38/2073), the incidence of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 was 3.8% (78/2073) and the anastomotic leak rate was 4.9% (86/1738). Mortality was lowest in patients without a leak or SARS-CoV-2 (14/1601, 0.9%) and highest in patients with both a leak and SARS-CoV-2 (5/13, 38.5%). Mortality was independently associated with anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 6.01, 95% confidence interval 2.58-14.06), postoperative SARS-CoV-2 (16.90, 7.86-36.38), male sex (2.46, 1.01-5.93), age >70 years (2.87, 1.32-6.20) and advanced cancer stage (3.43, 1.16-10.21). Compared with prepandemic data, there were fewer anastomotic leaks (4.9% versus 7.7%) and an overall shorter length of stay (6 versus 7 days) but higher mortality (1.7% versus 1.1%).

CONCLUSION

Surgeons need to further mitigate against both SARS-CoV-2 and anastomotic leak when offering surgery during current and future COVID-19 waves based on patient, operative and organizational risks.

One-year evaluation of anorectal functionality and quality of life in patients affected by mid-to-low rectal cancer treated with transanal total mesorectal excision

Surgery of mid-to-low rectal cancer is still considered challenging. Transanal total mesorectal excision has been proposed to facilitate the mesorectal dissection, gain sphincter-saving procedures, and reduce functional sequelae. Few studies have investigated long-term functional outcomes and patients' quality of life. The aim of this study was to compare functional outcomes and quality of life before and after transanal total mesorectal excision in 1-year follow-up. Between February 2016 and April 2019, 51 patients with mid- or low rectal cancer undergoing transanal total mesorectal excision at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" were enrolled. Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy was administered to locally advanced cancers. Before and after the surgical procedure, patients were examined collecting clinical data, LARS score, CCFIS, SF36 and FIQL, performing anorectal manometry and endoanal ultrasonography. Thirty-three patients were eligible and completed the 12 months follow-up. After treatment, six patients (18.2%) had minor or major LARS. A mild but significant increase of CCFIS was documented. Only the mean resting pressure significantly decreased at follow-up. No sphincter lesions were documented. FIQL assessment showed significant reduction of lifestyle, coping/behaviour, and embarrassment, while an increase of general health was assessed by SF36. At both uni- and multivariate analyses the neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy had a not negligible impact. Transanal total mesorectal excision represents a safe approach to patients treated for mid- or low rectal cancer. The functional sequelae can be limited in severity, with a low incidence of minor/major LARS, particularly faecal incontinence. These results are comparable to those obtained by the conventional total mesorectal excision.

Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, open surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An overview of systematic reviews

Regarding the surgical approaches for rectal cancer, many techniques have been reported in randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and reviews of comparisons between two techniques, e.g. open surgery vs laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery vs robotic surgery, or laparoscopic surgery vs transanal total mesorectal excision. Since robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision were developed after laparoscopic surgery had become an established minimally invasive technique, they have each been compared with laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, a review was performed to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision, and to perform such comparisons among ≥3 of the above mentioned approaches, in the expectation that this review will serve as a reference for aiding treatment selection in future. The results of the current review suggest that all of the examined procedures have advantages and disadvantages, but that there are no decisive factors that could be used to select one procedure over any other. At the present time it cannot be demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, transanal total mesorectal excision, or open surgery is superior to the other techniques, and it is important to select the best technique for each patient from among those that a surgeon can perform. It is also important to maintain a flexible attitude that allows new techniques to be adopted as needed in the future.

Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgical resection for rectal cancer usually requires a proctectomy with respective lymphadenectomy (total mesorectal excision). This has traditionally been performed transabdominally through an open incision. Over the last thirty years, minimally invasive surgery platforms have rapidly evolved with the goal to accomplish the same quality rectal resection through a less invasive approach. There are currently three resective modalities that complement the traditional open operation: (1) Laparoscopic surgery; (2) Robotic surgery; and (3) Transanal total mesorectal excision. In addition, there are several platforms to carry out transluminal local excisions (without lymphadenectomy). Evidence on the various modalities is of mixed to moderate quality. It is unreasonable to expect a randomized comparison of all options in a single trial. This review aims at reviewing in detail the various techniques in regard to intra-/perioperative benchmarks, recovery and complications, oncological and functional outcomes.

Current Status of the Management of Stage I Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the current available treatments for stage I rectal cancer and the evidence that supports them.

RECENT FINDINGS

Radical surgery, or total mesorectal excision (TME) without neoadjuvant therapy, reports excellent oncologic outcomes, with 5-year disease-free survival of approximately 95%. Alternative therapies include local excision, which has acceptable long-term outcomes in some low-risk T1 tumors; but overall local excision, with or without additional chemotherapy or radiation, generally reports 5-year disease-free survival less than TME alone. New research is showing complete clinical response rates of 67% with chemoradiation combined with additional consolidation chemotherapy in T2 lesions, making watch and wait a potential strategy for stage I tumors. Owing to its superior oncologic outcomes, radical surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for stage I tumors. Both local excision and watch and wait have advantages that may make them useful in individual patients and should be considered under the right circumstances.

What is the advantage of rectal amputation with an initial perineal approach for primary anorectal carcinoma?

Background

Rectal amputation (RA) remains an important surgical procedure for salvage despite advances in sphincter-preserving resection, including intersphincteric resection. The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of RA with an initial perineal approach to those of RA with an initial abdominal approach (conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR)) for primary anorectal cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of 48 patients who underwent RA with an initial perineal approach (perineal group) and 21 patients who underwent RA with an initial abdominal approach (conventional group).

Results

For the perineal group, the operation time was shorter than that for the conventional group (313 vs. 388 min, p = 0.027). The postoperative complication rate was similar between the two groups (43.8 vs. 47.6%, p = 0.766). Perineal wound complications (PWCs) were significantly fewer in the perineal group than in the conventional group (22.9 vs. 57.1%, p = 0.006). All 69 patients underwent complete TME, but positive CRM was significantly higher in the conventional group than in the perineal group (0 vs. 19.0%, p = 0.011). There were no significant differences in the recurrence (43.8 vs. 47.6%, p = 0.689), 5-year disease-free survival (63.7% vs. 56.7%, p = 0.665) and 5-year overall survival rates (82.5% vs. 66.2%, p = 0.323) between the two groups.

Conclusion

These data suggest that RA with an initial perineal approach for selective primary anorectal carcinoma is advantageous in minimizing PWCs and positive CRMs. Further investigations on the advantages of this approach are necessary.

Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: hype or new hope?

Rectal cancer has always posed surgical challenges to the colorectal surgeon. The quality of the total mesorectal excision (TME) performed is key in determining local disease control. Unlike the great success in adoption of laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer treatment, studies comparing laparoscopy to open rectal surgery all revealed noninferiority was not achieved. Transanal TME (taTME) is the latest advanced technique pioneered to tackle difficult pelvic dissections. The evolution of taTME surgery in recent years was explored in this review. The outcomes to date on the latest literatures are reviewed, included complications, functional outcomes, oncological results and future clinical researches. taTME, while definitely still in its early stages of development, has steadily accumulated safety and feasibility data. It not only provides a better solution to an old problem that colorectal surgeons have been attempting to tackle for quite some time, but also appears to be quite promising in terms of outcomes on numerous fronts. With structured training models, and proctored clinical application, alongside design and implementation of international-scale large multicenter randomized clinical trials, one can only hope that taTME and its innovations will not only open a new era for colorectal surgery, but also for even more surgical disease pathologies.

Advantages of using a robotic stapler in rectal cancer surgery

To compare short-term postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) after the use of robotic and laparoscopic staplers. Over a 5-year period, 196 patients were divided into 2 groups according to the use of laparoscopic (LS) or robotic stapler (RS). Patient demographics and postoperative complications were compared. A total of 145 (74%) robotic TME were performed using the LS and 51 (26%) the RS. No conversions to laparoscopy or laparotomy were observed, in either group. Transection of the rectum using one or two firings was achieved in a higher proportion of RS cases (91%) compared with LS cases (60%; p < 0.001). The anastomotic leakage (AL) rate was 4% in the RS group vs. 7% in the LS group (p > 0.05). However, when three or more firings were needed for the rectal transection, the risk of AL increased (3.4% with ≤ 2 firings vs. 10.7% with ≥ 3 firings, p = 0.006). Our data confirm that multiple stapler firings for rectal transection have a major impact on AL. The robotic stapler simplifies the transaction, so that rectal division requires fewer stapler firings, with a potential reduction in the incidence of AL.