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

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision With Delayed Coloanal Anastomosis (TaTME-DCAA) Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LTME) and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision (RTME) for Low Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Short-term Outcomes, Bowel Function, and Cost

INTRODUCTION

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is surgical option for low rectal cancer, replacing conventional immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with bowel diversion. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of transanal TME (TaTME) with DCAA versus laparoscopic TME (LTME) with ICAA versus robotic TME (RTME) with ICAA.

METHODS

This was a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of patients who underwent elective TaTME-DCAA between November 2021 and June 2022. Patients were propensity-score matched in a ratio of 1:3 to patients who underwent LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA from January 2019 to December 2020. Outcome measures were histopathologic results, postoperative morbidity, function, and inpatient costs.

RESULTS

Twelve patients in the TaTME-DCAA group were compared with 36 patients in the LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA groups each after propensity score matching. Histopathologic results and postoperative morbidity rates were statistically similar. Overall stoma-related complication rates in the ICAA groups were 11%. Median total length of hospital stays for TME plus stoma reversal surgery was similar across all techniques (10 vs. 10 vs. 9 days; P =0.532). Despite a significantly shorter duration of follow-up, bowel function after TaTME-DCAA was comparable to that of LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA. Overall median inpatient costs of TaTME-DCAA were comparable to LTME-ICAA and significantly cheaper than RTME-ICAA ($31,087 vs. $29,927 vs. $36,750; P =0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

TaTME with DCAA is a feasible and safe technique compared with other minimally invasive methods of TME, while avoiding bowel diversion and stoma-related complications, as well as comparing favorably in terms of overall hospitalization costs.

Is Delaying a Coloanal Anastomosis the Ideal Solution for Rectal Surgery?: Analysis of a Multicentric Cohort of 564 Patients From the GRECCAR

OBJECTIVES

To assess the specific results of delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) in light of its 2 main indications.

BACKGROUND

DCAA can be proposed either immediately after a low anterior resection (primary DCAA) or after the failure of a primary pelvic surgery as a salvage procedure (salvage DCAA).

METHODS

All patients who underwent DCAA intervention at 30 GRECCAR-affiliated hospitals between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively included.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-four patients (male: 63%; median age: 62 years; interquartile range: 53-69) underwent a DCAA: 66% for primary DCAA and 34% for salvage DCAA. Overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality were 57%, 30%, and 1.1%, respectively, without any significant differences between primary DCAA and salvage DCAA ( P = 0.933; P = 0.238, and P = 0.410, respectively). Anastomotic leakage was more frequent after salvage DCAA (23%) than after primary DCAA (15%), ( P = 0.016).Fifty-five patients (10%) developed necrosis of the intra-abdominal colon. In multivariate analysis, intra-abdominal colon necrosis was significantly associated with male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 2.67 95% CI: 1.22-6.49; P = 0.020], body mass index >25 (OR = 2.78 95% CI: 1.37-6.00; P = 0.006), and peripheral artery disease (OR = 4.68 95% CI: 1.12-19.1; P = 0.030). The occurrence of this complication was similar between primary DCAA (11%) and salvage DCAA (8%), ( P = 0.289).Preservation of bowel continuity was reached 3 years after DCAA in 74% of the cohort (primary DCAA: 77% vs salvage DCAA: 68%, P = 0.031). Among patients with a DCAA mannered without diverting stoma, 75% (301/403) have never required a stoma at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

DCAA makes it possible to definitively avoid a stoma in 75% of patients when mannered initially without a stoma and to save bowel continuity in 68% of the patients in the setting of failure of primary pelvic surgery.

Modified pull-through coloanal anastomosis to avoid permanent stomas and reduce postoperative complications for lower rectal tumors

BACKGROUND

We performed pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis immediately after sphincter-preserving ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) [pull-through ultra (PTU)] to avoid permanent stoma and reduce postoperative complications of lower rectal tumors. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of PTU versus non-PTU (stapled or hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma) after sphincter-preserving ULAR for lower rectal tumors.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed prospectively maintained data from 100 consecutive patients who underwent PTU (n = 29) or non-PTU (n = 71) after sphincter-preserving ULAR for rectal tumors between January 2011 and March 2023. In PTU, hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis was immediately performed using 16 stitches of 4-0 monofilament suture during primary surgery. The clinical outcomes were assessed. The primary outcomes were rates of permanent stomas and overall postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The PTU group was significantly less likely to require a permanent stoma than the non-PTU group (P < 0.01). None of the patients in the PTU group required permanent stoma and the rate of overall complications was significantly lower in the PTU group (P = 0.01). The median operative time was comparable between the two groups (P = 0.33) but the median operative time during the second stage was significantly shorter in the PTU group (P < 0.01). The rates of anastomotic leakage and complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III were comparable between the two groups. Diverting ileostomy was performed in two patients with an anastomotic leak in the PTU group. The PTU group was significantly less likely to require a diverting ileostomy than those in the non-PTU group (P < 0.01). The composite length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the PTU group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PTU via immediate coloanal anastomosis for lower rectal tumors is a safe alternative to the current sphincter-preserving ULAR with diverting ileostomy for patients who wish to avoid a stoma.

Transanal total mesorectal excision and delayed coloanal anastomosis without stoma for low rectal cancer

The management of low rectal cancer is a perennial challenge for colorectal surgeons. The benefits of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in low rectal cancer are to secure the distal margin and avoid surgical space constraints within the deep pelvis. However, anastomotic leak remains an important concern. We report our technique and results combining TaTME with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) without bowel diversion. First, the splenic flexure, left colon and rectum are laparoscopically mobilized to mid-rectum. TaTME is performed to complete the distal rectal mobilization, and the specimen is delivered transanally and transected. The abdominoperineal colonic pull-through is secured to the anal canal and hypertonic dressing is applied regularly in the ward. The handsewn DCAA is performed one week later. An accompanying video demonstrates this technique. Five consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent TaTME with DCAA. All had upfront surgical resection except one who underwent total neoadjuvant therapy. Mean operative duration, blood loss, and length of hospital stay was 290 (250-375) min, 142 (10-200) ml and 11.6 (10-14) days respectively. One patient (20%) suffered a postoperative complication of persistent urinary retention, requiring an indwelling urinary catheter on discharge. There were no cases of open conversion and no instances of anastomotic leakage. Two patients (40%) had minor low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) and one (20%) had major LARS. TaTME and DCAA without stoma are complimentary techniques that augment the minimally invasive effects of laparoscopic sphincter-sparing low rectal cancer surgery, with good perioperative outcomes.