Short-term outcomes after transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20:227-234. [PMID: 26794213 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-015-1421-3]

Multicenter phase II trial of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: preliminary results

BACKGROUND

Transanal TME (taTME) combines abdominal and transanal dissection to facilitate sphincter preservation in patients with low rectal tumors. Few phase II/III trials report long-term oncologic and functional results. We report early results from a North American prospective multicenter phase II trial of taTME (NCT03144765).

METHODS

100 patients with stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma located ≤ 10 cm from the anal verge (AV) were enrolled across 11 centers. Primary and secondary endpoints were TME quality, pathologic outcomes, 30-day and 90-day outcomes, and stoma closure rate. Univariable regression analysis was performed to assess risk factors for incomplete TME and anastomotic complications.

RESULTS

Between September 2017 and April 2022, 70 males and 30 females with median age of 58 (IQR 49-62) years and BMI 27.8 (IQR 23.9-31.8) kg/m2 underwent 2-team taTME for tumors located a median 5.8 (IQR 4.5-7.0) cm from the AV. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was completed in 69%. Intersphincteric resection was performed in 36% and all patients were diverted. Intraoperative complications occurred in 8% including 3 organ injuries, 2 abdominal and 1 transanal conversion. The 30-day and 90-day morbidity rates were 49% (Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ 3 in 28.6%) and 56% (CD ≥ 3 in 30.4% including 1 mortality), respectively. Anastomotic complications were reported in 18% including 10% diagnosed within 30 days. Higher anastomotic risk was noted among males (p = 0.05). At a median follow-up of 5 (IQR 3.1-7.4) months, 98% of stomas were closed. TME grade was complete or near complete in 90%, with positive margins in 2 cases (3%). Risk factors for incomplete TME were ASA ≥ 3 (p = 0.01), increased time between NRT and surgery (p = 0.03), and higher operative blood loss (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

When performed at expert centers, 2-team taTME in patients with low rectal tumors is safe with low conversion rates and high stoma closure rate. Mid-term results will further evaluate oncologic and functional outcomes.

Comparing perioperative and oncological outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective studies

INTRODUCTION

Meta-analysis of the results of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and laparoscopic TME (laTME) regarding perioperative and oncological outcomes have been conducted. Due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies in the included literature, the conclusions are unreliable. This study included RCTs and prospective studies for analysis to obtain more reliable conclusions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted up to June 2023. To assess the quality, the Cochrane quality assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were employed. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were then analyzed. The I2 statistic was used to evaluate statistical heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies, comprising 5056 patients, were included in the analysis, of which 6 were RCTs and 16 were prospective studies. The conversion rate in the taTME group was significantly lower than that in the laTME group (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.22, P < 0.01), and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was longer (MD 0.99 mm, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32 mm, P < 0.01), with a lower rate of positive CRM involvement (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97, P = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, anastomotic leakage, uroschesis, obstruction, secondary operation, hospital stay, urethral injury, readmission, mortality rate within 30 days, mesorectal resection quality, number of harvested lymph nodes, distal resection margin (DRM), positive DRM, local recurrence, and distance recurrence (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

According to the findings of this meta-analysis, which is based on RCTs and prospective studies, taTME appears to have an advantage over laTME in terms of conversion rate and CRM involvement.

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.

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.

Total mesorectal excision laparoscopic versus transanal approach for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Total mesorectal excision (TME) performed for the first time by Held through an open approach, it has become the standard technique for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. The aim the of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes provided by TaTME than LaTME.

Material and methods

In this meta-analysis, we included all comparative studies, prospective and retrospective, which addressed in low and middle rectal cancer, a comparison between TaTME and LaTME. A search was performed through MEDLINE and Cochrane Database. 846 records were identified.

Results

Eight relevant studies have been included in this meta-analysis. The studies were from France, Russia, USA, Netherlands, Taiwan, Egypt. The eight studies including 471 patients with middle or low rectal cancer.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis confirmed safety of TaTME for low and middle rectal cancer. TaTME can lead to a high quality of rectal cancer resection specimen.

•

The aim the of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes provided by TaTME than LaTME.

•

We included all comparative studies, which addressed in low and middle rectal cancer.

•

Eight relevant studies have been included.

•

The meta-analysis confirmed safety of TaTME for rectal cancer.

S184: preoperative sarcopenia is associated with worse short-term outcomes following transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Malnutrition and deconditioning impact postoperative morbidity and mortality. Computed tomography (CT) body composition variables are used as markers of nutritional status and sarcopenia. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of sarcopenia, using CT variables, on postoperative outcomes following transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This was an institutional retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent TaTME between April 2014 and May 2020. Psoas muscle index (PMI) was calculated from diagnostic CT scans. Based on previous studies, patients in the lowest PMI tertile by gender were considered sarcopenic. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Readmission rates and postoperative complications were compared between groups. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to determine the association between sarcopenia and 30-day postoperative complications.

RESULTS

85 patients were analyzed, of which 63% were male, with a median age of 59 (IQR: 51-65), and median BMI of 28 (IQR: 24-32). Of the entire cohort, 34% (n = 29) were sarcopenic (median PMI 5.39 IQR: 4.49-6.71). No significant difference in baseline characteristics between sarcopenic and nonsarcopenic patients were observed. 55% of sarcopenic patients experienced a complication within 30 days compared to 24% of nonsarcopenic patients (p = 0.01). 41% of sarcopenic patients required hospital readmission within 30 days compared to 17% of their nonsarcopenic counterparts (p = 0.014). Sarcopenic patients also experienced significantly higher rates of post-operative small bowel obstruction (10% vs. 0%, p = 0.04). Multivariable analyses identified that sarcopenic patients have a fourfold increase in odds of experiencing a 30-day postoperative complication (OR: 4.44, 95%CI: 1.6-12.4, p < 0.05) after adjusting for gender.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative sarcopenia is associated with increased 30-day postoperative complications following TaTME for rectal cancer. Postoperative complications can have serious oncologic implications by delaying adjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, preoperative recognition of sarcopenia prior to undergoing TaTME for rectal cancer may provide an opportunity for early intervention with prehabilitation programs.

Effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction on stigma, coping styles, and quality of life in patients with permanent colorectal cancer stoma: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

: Colorectal cancer patients with permanent colostomy may suffer stigma, negative coping style, and low quality of life at varying degrees, which may be improved by the mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). In recent years, MBSR has been used in the comprehensive treatment of colorectal cancer with permanent colostomy, hoping to bring a positive outcome. However, the practical application effect of MBSR has not been elucidated so far. Therefore, this study conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of MBSR on stigma, coping style, and quality of life in colorectal cancer patients with permanent colostomy, providing reliable evidence for clinical application.

METHODS

: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting MBSR on stigma, coping style, and quality of life in patients with permanent stoma of colorectal cancer published before December 2021 will be searched in online databases such as the PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Biomedical Literature Database, and Chinese Scientific Journal Database. The quality of the literature will be evaluated using the risk of bias assessment tool in Revman 5.4. Meta-analysis will be performed using Revman 5.4 software.

RESULTS

: The Social Impact Scale (SIS), Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ), and quality of life scale will be used to evaluate the effects of MBSR on stigma, coping style, and quality of life in colorectal cancer patients with permanent colostomy.

CONCLUSION

: This study will provide a reliable evidence-based basis for MBSR to reduce stigma, improve coping style, and improve quality of life for colorectal cancer patients with permanent colostomy.

OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER

DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/CD4PV.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on complications of transanal total mesorectal excision

AIM

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a surgical approach for treating mid to low rectal cancer as well as other colorectal diseases. Since the procedure is difficult to master, perioperative complications of TaTME should be examined precisely, especially during the early implementation phase of this procedure. The primary aim of this review was to determine a pooled morbidity and anastomotic leakage (AL) rate after TaTME surgery, and the secondary aim was to show the completeness of reporting of complications among the included studies, as well as the correlation between completeness and reported incidence of complications.

METHOD

A systematic review of literature was conducted using Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases, searching for observational studies reporting on complications after TaTME. Studies published between 1 January 2010 and 15 October 2019 were included. Meta-analysis on the proportion of morbidity, AL and intraoperative complications was performed.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies (2446 TaTME cases), consisting of 27 noncomparative studies and 14 comparative studies, were included, after screening 1711 possible studies. The pooled rates of overall morbidity and AL were 30.0% (95% CI 26.4%-34.0%) and 6.8% (95% CI 5.2%-8.9%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the morbidity rate in studies that reported 30-day results (35.5%; 95% CI 31.8%-39.4%) was significantly higher than the rate in studies that did not define the follow-up length for complications (23.4%; 95% CI 17.8%-30.1%; p = 0.003). The rates of intraoperative urethral injury, rectal injury, vaginal injury and bladder injury were 0.3% (95% CI 0.1%-1.7%), 0.4% (95% CI 0.1%-2.2%), 0.3% (95% CI 0.1%-0.8%) and 0.3% (95% CI 0.1%-1.7%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that pooled perioperative complication rates were within acceptable ranges. However, the significant difference in overall morbidity rate between the studies with 30-day results and the studies without a specified follow-up time, indicates a large under-reporting of complications in many studies.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Resection of low rectal adenocarcinoma can be challenging in the narrow pelvis of male patients. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to offer technical advantages for distal rectal tumours, and robotic-assisted transabdominal TME (rTME) was introduced in effort to improve operative precision and ergonomics. However, no study has comprehensively compared these approaches. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare postoperative short-term outcomes in rTME and TaTME.

METHODS

A systematic online search (1974-July 2020) of MEDLINE, Embase, web of science and google scholar was conducted for trials, prospective or retrospective studies involving rTME, or TaTME for rectal cancer. Outcome variables included: hospital stay; operation duration, blood loss; resection margins; proportion of histologically complete resected specimens; lymph nodes; overall complications; anastomotic leak, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Sixty-two articles met the inclusion criteria, including 37 studies (3835 patients) assessing rTME resection, 23 studies (1326 patients) involving TaTME and 2 comparing both (165 patients). Operating time was longer in rTME (309.2 min, 95% CI 285.5-332.8) than in TaTME studies (256.2 min, 95% CI 231.5-280.9) (p = 0.002). rTME resected specimens had a larger distal resection margin (2.62 cm, 95% CI 2.35-2.88) than in TaTME studies (2.10 cm, 95% CI 1.83-2.36) (p = 0.007). Other outcome variables did not significantly differ between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

rTME provides similar pathological and short-term outcomes to TaTME and both are reasonable surgical approaches for patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer. To definitively answer the question of the optimal TME technique, we suggest a prospective trial comparing both techniques assessing long-term survival as a primary outcome.

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.

Outcomes of robotic low anterior resection versus transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Background

The quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) is regarded as a fundamental key to the oncological outcome of rectal cancer. Robotic low anterior resection (RLAR) and transanal TME (TaTME) were developed to overcome the technical challenges of conventional open TME. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of RLAR versus TaTME for rectal cancer.

Methods

Retrospective data from patients undergoing RLAR or TaTME at a colorectal unit in Singapore were analysed. The primary outcomes were the short-term clinical and pathological results including specimen margins and quality of TME. Secondary outcomes were recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival rates.

Results

A total of 80 patients who underwent either RLAR or TaTME were analysed. The TaTME group had a shorter operating time than the RLAR group (354 versus 481 min respectively; P < 0.001) and fewer stays in the high-dependency and intensive care units (38.1 versus 73.7 per cent; P = 0.010). There was a higher rate of readmissions at 30 days in the TaTME group (19.0 versus 0 per cent; P = 0.006). Specimens from TaTME had greater proximal (14.0 versus 10.0 cm; P = 0.045) and distal (2.50 versus 1.65 cm; P = 0.021) margins. Patients undergoing TaTME had borderline longer DFS (25.9 versus 15.7 months; P = 0.049). Subgroup analysis of patients with (y)pT3–4 tumours showed fewer positive circumferential resection margins with TaTME (0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.019) and improved DFS (25.9 versus 15.7 months; P = 0.017).

Conclusion

Superior margins were obtained with TaTME, especially in locally advanced tumours, although TaTME was associated with a higher readmission rate compared with RLAR.

Impact of Surgical Approach on Surgical Resection Quality in Mid- and Low Rectal Cancer, A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

AIM

To evaluate the evidence concerning the quality of surgical resection in laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RobTME) and transanal (TaTME) total mesorectal excision for mid-/low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was performed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was utilized to compare surgical resection involved in these 3 surgical techniques by using ADDIS software. Rates of positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) were the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 34 articles, 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 32 non-RCTs, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data showed CRM positivity in 114 of 1763 LapTME procedures (6.5%), 54 of 1051 RobTME procedures (5.1%) and 60 of 1276 TaTME procedures (4.7%). There was no statistically significant difference among these 3 surgical approaches in terms of CRM involvement rates and all other surgical resection quality outcomes. The incomplete mesorectal excision rates were 9.6% (69/720) in the LapTME group, 1.9% (11/584) in the RobTME group and 5.6% (45/797) in the TaTME group. Pooled network analysis observed a higher but not statistically significant risk of incomplete mesorectum when comparing both LapTME with RobTME (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 0.48-11.17) and LapTME with TaTME (OR = 1.90; 95% CI = 0.99-5.25). By comparison, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best or second best in terms of CRM involvement, complete mesorectal excision, rate of distal resection margin (DRM) involvement and length of DRMs. In addition, RobTME achieved a greater mean tumor distance to the CRM than TaTME. It is worth noting that TaTME was most likely to be ranked the worst in terms of CRM involvement for intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Overall, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best in terms of the quality of surgical resection for the treatment of mid-/low rectal cancer. TaTME should be performed with caution in the treatment of low rectal cancer.

TransAnal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) in Peru: Case series

•

Transanal total mesorectum excision is feasible for mid and low rectal cancer.

•

Good quality of the mesorectum specimen is obtain after TaTME surgery.

•

TaTME with intersphincteric resection is a feasible option for selected cases of very low rectal cancer.

•

Surgical complication rates after intersphincteric TaTME with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis could be higher.

Introduction

Describe and demonstrate the feasibility and safety of TaTME in short term outcomes in the Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas (INEN) in Peru.

Materials and methods

Case series with retrospective and prospective data collection of patients with middle and inferior rectal cancer who underwent TaTME between January 2015 and March 2020. Patients and tumor characteristics, operative details, postoperative complications and pathological results were analyzed.

Results

Nineteen patients were included. The median age was 56 years old (range 40–69). Ten were female. The median distance from the anal verge was 4 cm (range 3–6) and 17 cases were located in the inferior rectum. Eleven patients with clinical stage III. Thirteen (68.4%) patients received neoadjuvant treatment. There was no conversion to open surgery reported. Ten (52.6%) cases had intersphincteric resection and 18 (94.7%) had primary coloanal anastomosis, 13 (72.2%) of them with hand-sewn. All patients had a diversion with ileostomy. The median operative time was 330 min (range 270–480). Median postoperative hospital stay of 5 days (range 3–18). The overall rate of postoperative complication was 21.1%, two cases (10.5%) had anastomotic leakage and mortality was present in one (5.3%) patient. 94.5% had an optimal TME specimen, only one case (5.3%) had positive circumferential resection margin and positive distal margin. The median tumor size in the specimen was 4 cm (range 2–11) and nine (47.4%) patients had ypT3 on pathology.

Conclusion

TaTME is a safe and feasible technique with good pathological results.

Optimising functional outcomes in rectal cancer surgery

Background

By improved surgical technique such as total mesorectal excision (TME), multimodal treatment and advances in imaging survival and an increased rate of sphincter preservation have been achieved in rectal cancer surgery. Minimal-invasive approaches such as laparoscopic, robotic and transanal-TME (ta-TME) enhance recovery after surgery. Nevertheless, disorders of bowel, anorectal and urogenital function are still common and need attention.

Purpose

This review aims at exploring the causes of dysfunction after anterior resection (AR) and the accordingly preventive strategies. Furthermore, the indication for low AR in the light of functional outcome is discussed. The last therapeutic strategies to deal with bowel, anorectal, and urogenital disorders are depicted.

Conclusion

Functional disorders after rectal cancer surgery are frequent and underestimated. More evidence is needed to define an indication for non-operative management or local excision as alternatives to AR. The decision for restorative resection should be made in consideration of the relevant risk factors for dysfunction. In the case of restoration, a side-to-end anastomosis should be the preferred anastomotic technique. Further high-evidence clinical studies are required to clarify the benefit of intraoperative neuromonitoring. While the function of ta-TME seems not to be superior to laparoscopy, case-control studies suggest the benefits of robotic TME mainly in terms of preservation of the urogenital function. Low AR syndrome is treated by stool regulation, pelvic floor therapy, and transanal irrigation. There is good evidence for sacral nerve modulation for incontinence after low AR.

Evolution of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

Minimally invasive techniques continue to transform the field of colorectal surgery. Because traditional surgical approaches for rectal cancer are associated with significant mortality and morbidity, developing less invasive approaches to this disease is paramount. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), commonly known as "no incision surgery," represents the ultimate minimally invasive approach to disease. Although transgastric and transvaginal approaches for NOTES surgery were the initially explored, a transrectal approach for colorectal disease is intuitive given that it makes use of the resected organ for transluminal access. Furthermore, the transanal approach allows for improved, precise visualization of the presacral mesorectal plane compared with an abdominal viewpoint, particularly in the narrow, male pelvis. Finally, experience with existing transanal platforms that have been used for decades for local excision of rectal disease made the development of a transanal approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) feasible. Here, we will review the evolution of minimally invasive and transanal surgical techniques that allowed for the development of transanal TME and its introduction into clinical practice.

Meta-analysis of transanal total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in management of rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate comparative outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic TME (LaTME) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We systematically searched multiple databases and bibliographic reference lists. A combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits were applied. Overall intraoperative complications, overall postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, surgical site infections (SSIs), completeness of mesorectal excision, R0 resection, distal (DRM) and circumferential resection margin (CRM), number of harvested lymph nodes, and procedure time were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

We identified 18 comparative studies reporting a total of 2048 patients evaluating outcomes of TaTME (n = 1000) and LaTME (n = 1048) in patients with rectal cancer. TaTME was associated with significantly higher number of R0 resection (OR 1.67, P = 0.01) and harvested lymph nodes (MD 1.08, P = 0.01), and lower rate of positive CRM (OR 0.67, P = 0.04) and conversion to an open procedure (OR 0.17, P < 0.00001) compared with LaTME. However, there was no significant difference in intraoperative complications (OR 1.18, P = 0.54), postoperative complications (OR 0.89, P = 0.24), anastomotic leak (OR 0.88, P = 0.42), SSIs (OR 0.64, P = 0.26), completeness of mesorectal excision (OR 1.43, P = 0.19), DRM (MD 1.87, P = 0.16), CRM (MD 0.36, P = 0.58), and procedure time (MD - 10.87, P = 0.18) between TaTME and LaTME. Moreover, for low rectal tumours, TaTME was associated with significantly lower rate of anastomotic leak and higher number of lymph nodes (MD 2.06, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the meta-analysis of best available evidence (level 2) demonstrated that TaTME may be associated with better short-term oncological outcomes and similar clinical outcomes compared with LaTME, the differences between the two groups were small questioning their clinical relevance. No solid conclusions can be made due to lack of high quality randomised studies.

A comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision: trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis

AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved by employing open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LaTME) and robotic (RoTME) approaches but which of these has the best outcome? The aim of present study is to identify the most effective technique for rectal cancer by comparing all outcomes.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared at least two TME strategies were identified by literature search of electronic databases of articles published to June 2018. Network meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis was performed using a frequentist approach with random-effects meta-analysis. Data collection and analysis We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EmBase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Web of Science. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved publications were independently and blindly assessed by two authors.

RESULTS

Twenty-two RCTs with 4882 rectal cancer patients were included in this analysis. The trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the cumulative Z-curve crossed either the traditional boundary or the trial sequential monitoring boundaries, suggesting that OpTME resulted in a more complete TME specimen than LaTME (relative risk 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.08). Network meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in the other comparisons. Based on the P score of completeness of the TME specimen and circumferential resection margin positivity, the best technique was OpTME, followed by RoTME and then LaTME. However, this order was reversed when complications and mortality were considered. RoTME led to better lymph node harvest.

CONCLUSIONS

Although OpTME may give better pathological specimens, minimally invasive techniques may have advantages when considering lymph node harvest, complications and mortality. More RCTs are needed to determine which technique actually gives the best chance of survival.

OPEN, LAPAROSCOPIC AND TRANSANAL TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND NETWORK META ANALYSIS

AIM: to compare the effectiveness of different methods of total mesorectumectomy (TME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: the systematic review performed in accordance with PRISMA practice and recommendations.

RESULTS: Forty-one papers were included in the analysis. Fourteen studies were for transanal total mesorectumectomy (TA TME) (n=480) compared with laparoscopic (LA TME), 26 – for LA TME vs open (n=6820), 1 – for open vs TA TME. There was no significant difference between open TME, LA TME and TA TME in grade 3 quality of mesorectumectomy by Quirke. The positive circular resection margin (CRM) is less often in TA TME group, then LA TME (OR=2.58, CI 1.34-4.97, p=0.005). There was significantly lower positive CRM rate in LA TME then open TME (OR=0.73, CI 0.63-0.85, p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications rates between LA TME and TA TME (p=0.72). Network meta-analysis showed less postoperative complications followed LA TME than open TME (OR=0.75, CI 0.65-0.84).

CONCLUSION: TA TME is comparable with laparoscopic and open TME in short term results. Rates of positive CRM, the quality of Grade 1 mesorectal excision, the conversion rate, the postoperative urinary dysfunction, may have better results in TA TME.

Total mesorectal excision for low and middle rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus transanal approach-a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appeared to be a challenging alternative to Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LaTME) for low and middle rectal cancer. However, evidence remains low on the possible benefits of TaTME. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of comparative studies between TaTME and LaTME.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted on Medline, Embase, and Cochrane database. The following outcomes were assessed: conversion, operative time, morbidity, length of stay, readmission rate, and pathological and oncological results.

RESULTS

After review of 756 identified records, 14 studies were included (case-matched control n = 10, prospective cohort n = 3, retrospective study n = 1) comparing 495 TaTME and 547 LaTME. No randomized trial was available. Following criteria were significantly improved after TaTME vs. LaTME: readmission's rate (9% after TaTME vs. 18% after LaTME, OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.26-0.74, p = 0.002), length of stay (OR - 2.17, 95%CI - 3.68 to - 0.66, p = 0.005), overall morbidity (34 vs. 41%, OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.46-0.91, p = 0.001), major morbidity (8.7 vs. 14%, OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.34-0.83, p = 0.005), anastomotic leak (6.4 vs. 11.6%, OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.31-0.93, p = 0.03), and circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement (4 vs. 8.8%, OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.27-0.86, p = 0.01). No significant differences were observed between TaTME and LaTME regarding conversion's rate (3.2 vs. 8.8%, p = 0.09), operative time (OR - 10.73, p = 0.26), intraoperative complications (8.1 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.48), minor morbidity (27.9 vs. 29.6%, p = 0.27), positive distal resection margin (1.4 vs. 1.4%, p = 0.93), complete TME (75 vs. 75%, p = 0.74), harvested lymph nodes (OR 0.38, p = 0.44), and local recurrence rate (3.5 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.64).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis based on nonrandomized studies suggests that TaTME seems better than LaTME in terms of overall and major morbidities, anastomotic leak, readmission rate, CRM involvement, and length of stay. These results need to be confirmed by randomized controlled trial.

Evolution of surgery for rectal cancer: Transanal total mesorectal excision～new standard or fad?～

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) has recently been developed to overcome the difficulties associated with conventional laparoscopic or robotic TME. TaTME has gained popularity and becomes the center of attention among colorectal surgeons globally. The present review aims to update the literature, clarify the current status and perspectives of TaTME. Complete TaTME specimens were obtained in 85-97.1% of the case; the reported circumferential resection margin (CRM) ranged from 1.5% to 8.1%, whereas and distal resection margin (DRM) positive rates ranged from 0% to 3.2%. The conversion rate of TaTME occurred from 0 to 15%, and there was no difference between TaTME and laparoscopic or robotic TME. Intraoperative complications occurred in 5-6% of the case, which compared favorably to laparoscopic TME. The most serious intraoperative complication with this approach was urethral injury, although only small numbers were reported, which was possibly due to under-reporting. Clavien-Dindo I or II postoperative complications occurred in 22-24% of the case, and III or IV in 10-11% of the case, which did not differ between TaTME and laparoscopic or robotic TME. TaTME may be technically easier and more beneficial than laparoscopic, robotic or open TME in male patients with a narrow pelvis; in obese patients with a bulky tumor. At present two randomized controlled trials, COLOR III and GRECCAR, and comparing TaTME with laparoscopic TME are being conducted and their outcomes are awaited. TaTME is a complex procedure, but proved to be feasible, oncologically safe, and effective in difficult cases. Before this new technique is adopted, proper training with Proctor/mentorship is strongly advised. Careful case selection and audit of data are mandatory.

[Transanal total mesorectal excision-a critical appraisal]

INTRODUCTION

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the international standard for rectal cancer surgery. In addition to laparoscopic TME (lapTME), transanal TME (taTME) was developed in recent years to reduce the rate of incomplete TME, conversion to open surgery and postoperative functional impairment. Despite limited evidence, this technique is becoming increasingly more popular and is already routinely used by many hospitals for rectal cancer in varying tumor level locations. The aim of this review was to evaluate the taTME compared to anterior rectal resection with lapTME as the standard of care in rectal cancer surgery based on currently available evidence.

METHOD

The databases PubMed and Medline were systematically searched for publications on transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). Relevant studies were selected and further research based on the reference lists was undertaken.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies analyzing 3782 patients were identified. The taTME does not lead to a higher rate of complete TME-resected specimens compared to the standard procedure. So far, superiority could not be demonstrated for complication rates or for functional or oncological results. Serious complications secondary to dissection in incorrect planes were observed. The anastomotic level generally seems to be closer to the sphincter after taTME versus anterior lapTME.

CONCLUSION

Considering current evidence, taTME failed to show superiority compared to conventional anterior lapTME. Although taTME has some potential advantages, it carries substantial risks. If performed outside of clinical trials, it should therefore only be used in carefully selected patients with a high possibility of conversion, following adequate patient informed consent and after intense and systematic training of the surgeon.

Transanal completion proctectomy with close rectal dissection and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic dissection in the pelvis is still a challenge. A transanal approach to rectal dissection allows better visualization during the dissection of the rectum and the creation of an anastomosis. Although initially used for patients with rectal cancer, the transanal approach may also have benefits in the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The aim of this study was to describe our initial experience with transanal completion proctectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for UC.

METHODS

This study included all consecutive patients who underwent transanal completion proctectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for UC between September 2017 and February 2018.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were included in the study; they had a median age of 30 years (range, 13-51 years). The median operative time was 285 min (range, 190-375 min). There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to open surgery. Postoperative complications occurred in only one patient (anastomotic leak), and the median length of hospital stay was 7 days (range, 5-37 days).

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience with transanal completion proctectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis shows promising results, demonstrating the feasibility of the transanal approach in patients with UC.

Systemic review and network meta-analysis comparing minimal surgical techniques for rectal cancer: quality of total mesorectum excision, pathological, surgical, and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimal invasive surgery has revolutionized recovery in rectal cancer patients. However, there has been debate on its effect on quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and oncological outcomes. This network meta-analysis compares laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and transanal TMEs. This study shows that All three surgical techniques are comparable across TME quality and oncological outcomes. Ultimately, good outcomes are based on each individual surgeon choosing an approach based on their expertise.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: Is There a Real Advantage? The Baltic View

Background

The novel surgical procedure transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has rapidly become an interest of research in order to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of middle and low rectal cancer. taTME is a new natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery modality combining three rectal surgery techniques.

Methods

A retrospective clinical study was conducted in a single centre for a period of 3 years, and herein we report on our first 25 taTME procedures in patients with middle and lower third rectal adenocarcinoma.

Results

The main demographics were evaluated. The mean age of patients was 64 ± 12 years. There were predominantly males (72%) and 7 female patients (28%) with an average body mass index of 29 ± 4.8 kg/m². High blood pressure, obesity, chronic heart insufficiency, chronic atrial fibrillation, and diabetes mellitus were commonly diagnosed in all patients. A circumferential resection margin >1 mm was achieved in 16% (n = 4), >2 mm in 40% (n = 10), and >3 mm in 44% (n = 11) of operated patients. The average CRM was 1.8 ± 0.9 cm. In 24% of cases, the distance of a tumour from the mesorectal fascia (MRF) was <1 mm; meanwhile, for 76% of patients, the tumour margin was >1 mm from the MRF. Recovery to flatus was 3 ± 1 days. The average length of hospital stay was 11 ± 3 days. The overall postoperative morbidity was 8%, i.e. one (4%) complication classified as Clavien-Dindo degree I and one (4%) major (IIIb) complication. Subsequently, all patients successfully recovered and were discharged from hospital. During the follow-up period no cancer recurrence was observed.

Conclusion

Our results nicely demonstrate that taTME can be safely performed with acceptable perioperative complications in patients with middle or lower third rectal cancer. In addition, the perioperative morbidity is also acceptable. However, taTME remains a technically highly demanding operation but is feasible and safe after the appropriate experience is gained. Nevertheless, larger multi-centre prospective randomised studies are ongoing to confirm the safety and to verify oncological results when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME): current status and future perspectives

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard surgical treatment for mid- and low rectal cancer; however, it is associated with specific technical hurdles. Transanal TME (TaTME) is a new procedure developed to overcome these difficulties, through an enhanced visualization of the dissection plane. This potentially could result in a more accurate distal dissection with a lower rate of positive circumferential resection margins, increasing the rate of sphincter-saving procedures. The indications for TaTME are currently expanding, despite not being yet standardized, and structured training programs are ongoing to help overcome the steep learning curve related to the technique. The procedure is feasible and safe with similar intraoperative complications and readmission rates when compared with conventional open or laparoscopic TME. Favorable short-term oncologic results have been reported: in particular, TaTME is associated with mesorectal specimen of a better quality and a longer distal resection margin that is established at the beginning of the procedure under direct view. Robotics, when available, will probably overcome the steep learning curve related to the complexity of TaTME. Long-term follow-up and ongoing RCT trials data are awaited regarding functional results, local recurrence and survival, and to facilitate the comparison with standard laparoscopic or robotic rectal resections. The present review is focused on critically analyzing the theoretical benefits and risks of the procedure, its indications, short- and long-term results and future direction in the application of TaTME.

Transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

Introduction

The benefit of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for mid and low rectal cancer is conflicting.

Aim

To assess and compare the short-term outcomes of TaTME with conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for middle and low rectal cancer.

Material and methods

We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases for studies addressing TaTME versus conventional LaTME for rectal cancer between 2008 and December 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies which compared TaTME with LaTME were included.

Results

Twelve retrospective case-control studies were identified, including a total of 899 patients. We did not find significant differences in overall intraoperative complications, blood loss, conversion rate, operative time, overall postoperative complication, anastomotic leakage, ileus, or urinary morbidity. Also no significant differences in oncological outcomes including circumferential resection margin (CRM), positive CRM, distal margin distance (DRM), positive DRM, quality of mesorectum, number of harvested lymph nodes, temporary stoma or local recurrence were found. Although the TaTME group had better postoperative outcomes (readmission, reoperation, length of hospital stay) on average, the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions

Transanal total mesorectal excision offers a safe and feasible alternative to LaTME although the clinicopathological features were not superior to LaTME in this study. Currently, with the lack of evidence on benefits of TaTME, further evaluation of TaTME requires large randomized control trials to be conducted.

Short-term Outcomes of Transanal versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

Introduction: The TaTME surgery has been developed to overcome the difficulties encountered in the practice of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, especially in male, obese patients with a narrow pelvis and mid and low rectal tumours. Although the TaTME shows some promising results regarding oncological and operative outcomes, some pitfalls have been indicated. Thus, the real benefits of this novel technique over the laparoscopic surgery remain unknown. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the currently available literature on the outcomes of TaTME in comparison with laparoscopic procedure.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using the web-based databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL, followed by a manual search of the references of the initially identified articles. The study information, patient characteristics, oncological outcomes, perioperative outcomes, as well as short- and long-term postoperative outcomes were collected and critically evaluated.

Results: Nine retrospective cohort studies were identified, comprising 751 patients (348 with TaTME, 403 with LaTME). The positive circumferential resection margin (P = 0.01) was better in patients treated with TaTME; whereas the quality of mesorectum, circumferential resection margin, distal resection margin, and harvested lymph nodes were comparable. The TaTME was associated with shorter operative time (P = 0.05; P = 0.0006 in subgroup analysis), less blood loss (P = 0.02), less conversion (P = 0.007), and shorter hospital stay (P = 0.06; P = 0.003 in subgroup analysis). The intraoperative complications were similar. As for the postoperative outcomes, the overall postoperative complications (P = 0.02) and the readmission (P = 0.003) were found less in patients treated with TaTME; however, the individual postoperative complications were found comparable.

Conclusion: The present systematic review and meta-analysis suggested some advantages of TaTME, in terms of circumferential resection margin involvement, operative time, blood loss, conversion, hospital stay, overall postoperative complications, and readmission. It appears that the TaTME procedure achieved a better resection quality and smoother recovery in selected patients, without compromising the short-term safety. Nevertheless, it is too early to draw any conclusion, since results of high quality clinical evidence from randomized controlled trials have to be awaited. As it is technically demanding, the procedure needs to be taught and learned systematically to ensure safe implementation.

Comparison of Short-Term Clinical and Pathological Outcomes after Transanal versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Anterior Rectal Resection Due to Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a new technique that is designed to overcome the limits of the open and laparoscopic approach for rectal resections. Objective: This study is designed to compare TaTME with standard laparoscopic TME (LaTME). Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases covering a up to October 2018. Inclusion criteria for study enrolment: (1) study comparing laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer vs. TaTME for rectal malignancy, (2) reporting of overall morbidity, operative time, or major complications. Results: Eleven non-randomized studies were eligible with a total of 778 patients. We found statistical significant differences in regard to major complications in favour of TaTME (RR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.31–0.97; p = 0.04). We did not found significant differences regarding overall complications intraoperative adverse effects, operative time, anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess occurrence, Surgical Site Infection, reoperations, Length of stay, completeness of mesorectal excision, R0 resection rate, number of harvested lymph nodes, circumferential resection margin, and distal resection margin. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows benefits of TaTME technique regarding major postoperative complications. Regarding clinicopathological features transanal approach is not superior to LaTME. Currently, the quality of the evidence on benefits of TaTME is low due to lack of randomized controlled trials, which needs to be taken into consideration in further evaluation of the technique. Further evaluation of TaTME require conducting large randomized control trials.

Systematic review analysis of robotic and transanal approaches in TME surgery- A systematic review of the current literature in regard to challenges in rectal cancer surgery

Several patients' and pathological characteristics in rectal surgery can significantly complicate surgical loco regional tumor clearance. The main factors are obesity, short tumor distance from anal verge, bulky tumors, and narrow pelvis, which have been shown to be associated to poor surgical results in open and laparoscopic approaches. Minimally invasive surgery has the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity with equivalent short- and long-term oncological outcomes compared to conventional open approach. Achilles' heel of laparoscopic approaches is conversion to open surgery. High risk for conversion is evident for patients with bulky and low tumors as well as male gender and narrow pelvis. Hence, patient's characteristics represent challenges in rectal cancer surgery especially in minimally invasive approaches. The available surgical techniques increased remarkably with recently developed and implemented improvements of minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery. The controversial discussions about sense and purpose of these novel approaches are still ongoing in the literature. Herein, we evaluate, if latest technical advances like transanal approach or robotic assisted surgery have the potential to overcome known challenges and pitfalls in rectal cancer surgery in demanding surgical cases and highlight the role of current minimally invasive approaches in rectal cancer surgery.

Transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a case-matched study comparing TaTME versus standard laparoscopic TME

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is emerging as a novel alternative to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME). The aim of this study was to compare clinical and pathological results from these two techniques in patients undergoing rectal resections because of low rectal cancer.

Materials and methods

Thirty-five patients undergoing TaTME were matched with 35 patients operated on using LaTME. Composite primary endpoint (complete TME, negative circumferential resection margin [pCRM], and distal resection margin [pDRM]) was used to assess pathological quality specimens. Secondary outcomes included operative and postoperative parameters (operative time, total blood loss, postoperative morbidity, length of stay, 30-day mortality).

Results

Composite primary endpoint was achieved by 85% of subjects in the TaTME group and 82% of subjects in the LaTME group (P=0.66). Mean pCRM was 1.1±1.29 vs 0.99±0.78 mm (P=0.25). Distal pDRM was 1.57±0.92 and 1.98±1.22 cm (P=0.15). In the TaTME and LaTME groups, respectively, complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 89% and 83% of subjects, while excision was nearly complete for the remaining 11% and 17% (P=0.23).

Conclusion

TaTME appears to be a noninferior alternative to laparoscopic surgery. TaTME allows for quality retrieval of surgical specimens with comparable clinical outcomes with LaTME.

Short- and long-term outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-to-low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is positioned at the cutting edge of minimally invasive approach to mid- and low rectal cancer. This meta-analysis was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of TaTME versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) and to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and possible superiority of TaTME.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs) comparing TaTME with LTME. Inter-group differences were evaluated via standardized mean differences and relative risks (RRs). All outcomes were analyzed using fixed effects or random effects models according to the heterogeneity. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata/SE 12.0 software.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (1 RCT and 10 NRCTs) with involving 757 patients were included. Among which, 361 patients underwent TaTME and 396 patients underwent LTME. Comparing the surgical and oncological quality of resection of TaTME with that of LTME, reports of TaTME indicated favorable outcomes considering mesorectal resection quality, circumferential resection margin involvement, intraoperative blood loss, conversions, and postoperative complications, while the differences between the two groups had no statistical significance in terms of distal resection margin, harvested lymph node, operation time, hospital stay, recurrence, 2-year overall survival (OS), and 2-year disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

TaTME is a promising surgical technique and is fully a safe, efficacious, and diffusible alternative to LTME in managing mid- and distal rectal cancer. Larger scale, national, multicentric RCTs are warranted to further verify these results and the possible superiority of TaTME.

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

INTRODUCTION

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short-term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally.

METHODS

A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

Of 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02-2.48, P = 0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10-7.34, P = 0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non-transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed-effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77-1.97, P = 0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79-5.62, P = 0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55-4.77, P < 0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52-3.44, P < 0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%.

CONCLUSION

This contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results.

The application of transanal total mesorectal excision for patients with middle and low rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, in order to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of low rectal cancer, a new kind of surgical procedure, transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME), has rapidly become a research hotspot in the field of rectal cancer surgery study. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for the patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Relevant studies were searched from the databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of science. All relevant studies were collected to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TaTME for patients with rectal cancer. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and Cochrane Library Handbook 5.1.0. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies including 859 patients were included in our analysis. In terms of efficacy, compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME), meta-analysis showed that the rate of complete tumor resection increased and the risk of positive circumferential margins decreased in the TaTME group. For complete tumor resection and positive circumferential margins in the TaTME group, the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.93 and 1.09 to 3.42 (P = .02) and 0.43 and 0.22 to 0.82 (P = .01), respectively. Concerning safety, results showed that the rates of postoperative complications were similar in the 2 groups, and differences in the risk of ileus and anastomotic leakage were not statistically significant (OR = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.51-1.09, P = .13; OR = 0.91, 95%CI = 0.46-1.78, P = .78; OR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.45-1.38, P = .40).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis show that TaTME is associated with a reduced positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate, and could achieve complete tumor resection and improved the long-term survival in patients with mid- and low-rectal cancer.

[Transanal mesorectumectomy for rectal cancer - is it optimal surgery for 'difficult' patients?]

AIM

To compare short-term outcomes after transanal total mesorectumectomy (Ta-TME) and laparoscopic (Lap-TME) procedure in 'difficult' patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective nonrandomized trial included patients with confirmed middle-/low rectum adenocarcinoma T1-4aN0-2M0 for the period November 2013 - September 2016. We identified 20 out of 55 in TA-TME and 14 out of 54 patients in Lap-TME group as those of 'difficult' subgroup: male, BMI ≥25 кг/м², previous chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

RESULTS

Time of surgery, blood loss, conversions rate, postoperative morbidity and length of hospital-stay were similar in both groups. Hardware anastomoses were more frequent in TA-TME compared with LAP-TME group (78.9% vs. 50%, p=0.086). Specimen quality was more favorable in TA-TME group: Grade I 10% in Ta-TME group vs. 28.6% in Lap-TME group; 'positive' CRM 5% vs. 14.3%, р=0.365. Within-group analysis did not reveal any differences between 'difficult' and 'typical' patients by surgical and pathomorphological characteristics in TA-TME group in contrast to Lap-TME group. Median of follow-up was 24.6 (IR 10.6-40.2) and 23.8 (IR 12.1-39.9) months for TA-TME and Lap-TME groups, respectively. Local recurrence occurred in 1 (1.8%) 'difficult' patient after Ta-TME. Distant metastases were observed in 1 (1.8%) patient of Ta-TME and 2 (3.7%) patients of Lap-TME group. Actuarial 3-years reccurence-free survival was 95.7% for Ta-TME and 93.9% for Lap-TME group, respectively (p=0.923).

CONCLUSION

TA-TME is advisable for 'difficult' patients. Further multicenter randomized trials are necessary to specify the effectiveness of TA-TME in these patients.

Is trans-anal total mesorectal excision really safe and better than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer? A learning curve with case-matched study in 68 patients

AIM

To compare the learning curve for trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TATME) with laparoscopic TME started by a perineal approach (LTME).

METHOD

The first 34 consecutive patients who underwent TATME for low rectal cancer were matched with LTME (performed by the same surgeon) for gender, body mass index and chemoradiation.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients undergoing TATME (23 men; 58 ± 14 years) were matched with 34 undergoing LTME (23 men; 59 ± 13 years). Intra-operative complications occurred more frequently during TATME (21%) than LTME (6%), but this difference was not significant (P = 0.07). The complications of TATME included rectal (n = 4), bladder (n = 1) and vaginal (n = 1) injury and bleeding (n = 1). Length of stay and postoperative overall and major morbidities were similar between groups. Early symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL) occurred in 1/34 TATME and 5/34 LTME (15%; P = 0.02) procedures. Asymptomatic AL occurred in four TATME (12%) and four LTME (12%, P = 1). Thus, the overall rate of AL was 5/34 (15%) for TATME vs 9/34 (26%) for LTME (P = 0.4). No significant difference between the two groups was noted with regard to tumour, number of harvested and positive lymph nodes, R1 resection rate or completeness of the mesorectum. Metastatic recurrence was similar between groups (15% vs 18%, P = 0.7), but follow-up was shorter after TATME (13 ± 6 months) than after LTME (25 ± 14 months; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The TATME learning curve seems to be associated with a significant rate of intra-operative complications. Because no significant benefit has been reported to date, more evidence is needed before TATME can be considered as a better approach than laparoscopic TME with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer.

Evolution of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: From top to bottom

The gold standard for curative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer involves radical resection with a total mesorectal excision (TME). TME is the most effective treatment strategy to reduce local recurrence and improve survival outcomes regardless of the surgical platform used. However, there are associated morbidities, functional consequences, and quality of life (QoL) issues associated with TME; these risks must be considered during the modern-day multidisciplinary treatment for rectal cancer. This has led to the development of new surgical techniques to improve patient, oncologic, and QoL outcomes. In this work, we review the evolution of TME to the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) through more traditional minimally invasive platforms. The review the development, safety and feasibility, proposed benefits and risks of the procedure, implementation and education models, and future direction for research and implementation of the TaTME in colorectal surgery. While satisfactory short-term results have been reported, the procedure is in its infancy, and long term outcomes and definitive results from controlled trials are pending. As evidence for safety and feasibility accumulates, structured training programs to standardize teaching, training, and safe expansion will aid the safe spread of the TaTME.

Transanal Endoscopic and Transabdominal Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid-to-Low Rectal Cancer: Comparison of Short-term Postoperative and Oncologic Outcomes by Using a Case-Matched Analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to compare short-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes of a transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) to those of a transabdominal robotic TME.

Methods

A total of 62 patients with rectal cancer underwent transanal (n = 26) or robotic (n = 36) TME between June 2013 and December 2014. After case-matching by tumor location and TNM stage, 45 patients were included for analysis. The median follow-up period was 21.3 months. Operative, histopathologic and postoperative outcomes and recurrences were analyzed.

Results

Patients younger than 60 years of age were more frequently observed in the robotic TME group (75.0% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.059), but tumor location, cT and cN category, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy were not different between the 2 groups. Estimated blood loss was greater in the transanal group (283 mL vs. 155 mL, P = 0.061); however, the operation time and the rate of a diverting ileostomy and subsequent ileostomy repair were not different between the groups. The proximal resection margin was longer in the transanal TME group (20.8 cm ± 16.0 cm, P = 0.030), but the distal resection margins, involvements of the circumferential resection margin, TME quality, numbers of retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak and voiding difficulty, and recurrence rates for the 2 groups were not statistically different.

Conclusion

Transanal endoscopic and transabdominal robotic TME showed similar histopathologic and postoperative outcomes with the exception of the estimated blood loss and the proximal resection margin for a select group of patients.

Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures

Introduction

For a long time, the comprehensive application of minimally invasive techniques in lower gastrointestinal (GI) surgery was substantially impaired by inherent anatomical and technical complexities. Recently, several new techniques such as robotic operating platforms and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) have revolutionized the minimally invasive approach. This review aims to depict the current state of the art and evaluates the advantages and drawbacks in regard to perioperative outcome and quality of oncological resection.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using the search terms 'colorectal cancer', 'rectal cancer', 'minimally invasive surgery', 'laparoscopic surgery', and 'robotic' to identify relevant studies reporting on robotic surgery (RS) either alone or in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (LS). Publications on taTME were analyzed separately.

Results

69 studies reporting on RS with a total of 20,872 patients, and 17 articles on taTME including 881 patients, were identified.

Conclusion

Both RS and taTME can facilitate a minimally invasive approach for lower GI surgery in an increasing number of patients. Furthermore, combining both techniques might become an auspicious approach in selected patients; further prospective and randomized trials are needed to verify its benefits over conventional laTME.

Pathological outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since 2010, comparative studies on transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) have been published and it remains unclear about the oncological benefit from transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME).

METHODS

We have searched English databases to identify all taTME studies published between January 2010 and August 2017. Pathological outcomes included circumferential resection margin (CRM), positive CRM (< 1 M), length of distal resection margin (DRM), positive DRM, quality of mesorectum (complete mesorectum), harvested lymph node, and length of the specimen. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

We have included ten studies comprising of 762 patients. Compared with laparoscopic TME, taTME had a longer CRM (WMD, 0.833; 95% CI 0.366-1.299; P < 0.001), a lower positive rate of CRM (OR, 0.505; 95% CI 0.258-0.991; P = 0.047), and a longer DRM (WMD, 6.261; 95% CI 1.049-11.472; P = 0.019). There were no significant differences in other pathological outcomes. Both cumulative meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were unable to detect potential sources of the heterogeneity in DRM. There was no evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed that taTME had more advantages on positive CRM, CRM, and DRM compared with laparoscopic TME. Compared with laparoscopic TME, more benefits of taTME on pathological outcomes remained undetected. The current findings are all based on observational studies, RCTs with adequate power are required.

Effect of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes with laparoscopic and open surgeries

OBJECTIVE

To compare short-term results of total mesorectal excision (TME) for mid and low rectal cancer, achieved by transanal (TaTME), laparoscopic (LaTME), and open (OpTME) approaches.

BACKGROUND

The impact of TaTME on the surgical treatment of mid and low rectal cancer has yet to be clarified.

METHODS

This is a case-matched study, based on data from a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent TaTME from May 2015 to March 2017, and a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent LaTME and OpTME in the previous period. Each patient in the TaTME group was matched to one LaTME and one OpTME based on sex, BMI, tumor status, and the height of the tumor from the anal verge. Primary end-points were rates of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin, and the macroscopic quality of the surgical specimen. Composite of these outcomes was compared as an indication for successful surgery. Secondary end-points included intraoperative data and postoperative course and complications.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were included (TaTME = 100, LaTME = 100, OpTME = 100). The three groups were comparable in the baseline characteristics. TaTME resulted in lower rates of incomplete TME specimens than LaTME, but not OpTME (P = 0.016, P = 0.750, respectively). The rates of CRM involvement, mean CRM distance, and the percentages of successful surgery were comparable among the three groups (P = 0.368). The conversion to open surgery occurred only in the LaTME group. TaTME resulted in shorter operation time and less blood loss than the other two groups (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter in the TaTME group (P = 0.002); complication rate and mortality were comparable among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TaTME had, in our hands, some obvious benefits over other approaches. The pathological results were not significantly superior to LaTME and OpTME. The procedure is however feasible and safe. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term oncological and quality of life outcomes.

Meta-analysis of hybrid natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery

Background

Hybrid natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), combining access through a natural orifice with small-sized abdominal trocars, aims to reduce pain and enhance recovery. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare pain and morbidity in hybrid NOTES and standard laparoscopy.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs and non- RCTs comparing hybrid NOTES and standard laparoscopy. The main outcome was pain on postoperative day (POD) 1. Secondary outcomes were pain during the further postsurgical course, rescue analgesia, complications, and satisfaction with the cosmetic result. The results of meta-analysis in a random-effects model were presented as odds ratio (ORs) or standard mean differences (MDs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals.

Results

Six RCTs and 21 non-randomized trials including 2186 patients were identified. In hybrid NOTES the score on the numerical pain scale was lower on POD 1 (−0·75, 95 per cent c.i. −1·09 to −0·42; P = 0·001) and on POD 2–4 (−0·58, −0·91 to −0·26; P &lt; 0·001) than that for standard laparoscopy. The need for rescue analgesia was reduced in hybrid NOTES (OR 0·36, 0·24 to 0·54; P &lt; 0·001). The reduction in complications found for hybrid NOTES compared with standard laparoscopy (OR 0·52, 0·38 to 0·71; P &lt; 0·001) was not significant when only RCTs were considered (OR 0·83, 0·43 to 1·60; P = 0·570). The score for cosmetic satisfaction was higher after NOTES (MD 1·14, 0·57 to 1·71; P &lt; 0·001).

Conclusion

Hybrid NOTES reduces postoperative pain and is associated with greater cosmetic satisfaction in selected patients.

Recent surgical advances in colorectal cancer excision: toward optimal outcomes

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer affecting both males and females in the western world. Despite all the developments in the current treatment of colorectal cancer, it is still continuing to be an important factor of patient morbidity and mortality worldwide. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer. Over the last decade, there have been major changes and developments in the surgical treatment. Understanding the importance of the anatomy, technological advances in minimally invasive surgery and effects of chemoradiotherapy have changed the approaches to colorectal cancer treatment. Today, novel treatment strategies must be targeted not only minimally invasive approaches, but also aiming to increase patients’ quality of life without compromising the oncological principles.

Clinical outcomes and case volume effect of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been developed to improve quality of TME for patients with mid and low rectal cancer. However, despite enthusiastic uptake and teaching facilities, concern exists for safe introduction. TaTME is a complex procedure and potentially a learning curve will hamper clinical outcome. With this systematic review, we aim to provide data regarding morbidity and safety of TaTME. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid) and Cochrane Library. Case reports, cohort series and comparative series on TaTME for rectal cancer were included. To evaluate a potential effect of case volume, low-volume centres (n ≤ 30 total volume) were compared with high-volume centres (n > 30 total volume). Thirty-three studies were identified (three case reports, 25 case series, five comparative studies), including 794 patients. Conversion was performed in 3.0% of the procedures. The complication rate was 40.3, and 11.5% were major complications. The quality of the mesorectum was “complete” in 87.6%, and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was involved in 4.7%. In low- versus high-volume centres, the conversion rate was 4.3 versus 2.7%, and major complication rates were 12.2 versus 10.5%, respectively. TME quality was “complete” in 80.5 versus 89.7%, and CRM involvement was 4.8 and 4.5% in low- versus high-volume centres, respectively. TaTME for mid and low rectal cancer is a promising technique; however, it is associated with considerable morbidity. Safe implementation of the TaTME should include proctoring and quality assurance preferably within a trial setting.