Robotic Posterior Suturepexy for Colonic Prolapse Two Years After Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer

Neorectal prolapse following proctectomy: a novel application of mesh sacral pexy

Neorectal prolapse following proctectomy for cancer has seldom been reported and treatment has mostly consisted in the resection of the prolapse via a perineal approach. Management of a patient with neorectal J-pouch prolapse using mesh sacral pexy via an abdominal approach is reported. By analogy with native rectal prolapse due to pelvic static disorders, laparoscopic mesh sacral pexy is likely to afford the same advantages of low morbidity and durability when applied to neorectal prolapse following rectal cancer surgery.

Clinical outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision using a lateral-first approach for low rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Although transanal total mesorectal excision (ta-TME) is adopted for rectal cancer surgery by an increasing number of surgeons, it is still technically challenging. We have employed a lateral-first approach for ta-TME to overcome technical difficulties. However, its outcomes and advantage over conventional laparoscopic TME remain unclear.

METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive patients who underwent ta-TME using a lateral-first approach (the ta-TME group) and 53 consecutive patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic TME (the lap-TME group) for low rectal cancer were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to create balanced cohorts of ta-TME (n = 28) and lap-TME (n = 28). Their clinical outcomes were compared after PSM.

RESULTS

The operative time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly lower in the ta-TME group than in the lap-TME group (P = 0.042 and P < 0.001, respectively). Postoperative complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade II were significantly less and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ta-TME group (35.7% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.003, and 18 days vs. 32 days, P < 0.001, respectively). The distal margin was significantly larger in the ta-TME when excluding the abdominoperineal resection cases (20 mm vs. 10 mm, P = 0.032). The positive radial margin was observed in 2 of 28 patients (7.1%) in the ta-TME group.

CONCLUSIONS

Ta-TME using a lateral-first approach is feasible and may offer several advantages over lap-TME in terms of short-term outcomes. It might be an alternative safe approach for ta-TME. To confirm the oncological superiority of this surgery, further study in a larger population and for a longer follow-up period is warranted.