1
|
Geitenbeek RTJ, Burghgraef TA, Moes CA, Hompes R, Ranchor AV, Consten ECJ. Functional outcomes and quality of life following open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:4431-4444. [PMID: 38898341 PMCID: PMC11289076 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10934-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2024] [Accepted: 05/17/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients' functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients' functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses. RESULTS Nineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] -0 .15 [- 0.24 to - 0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ritch T J Geitenbeek
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813 TZ, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
- Department of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Thijs A Burghgraef
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813 TZ, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Carmen A Moes
- Department of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Roel Hompes
- Department of Surgery, University of Amsterdam, University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Cancer Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Adelita V Ranchor
- Department of Health Psychology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Esther C J Consten
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813 TZ, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hazen SMJA, van Geffen EGM, Sluckin TC, Beets GL, Belgers HJ, Borstlap WAA, Consten ECJ, Dekker JWT, Hompes R, Tuynman JB, van Westreenen HL, de Wilt JHW, Tanis PJ, Kusters M. Long-term restoration of bowel continuity after rectal cancer resection and the influence of surgical technique: A nationwide cross-sectional study. Colorectal Dis 2024; 26:1153-1165. [PMID: 38706109 DOI: 10.1111/codi.17015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2023] [Revised: 01/10/2024] [Accepted: 04/02/2024] [Indexed: 05/07/2024]
Abstract
AIM Literature on nationwide long-term permanent stoma rates after rectal cancer resection in the minimally invasive era is scarce. The aim of this population-based study was to provide more insight into the permanent stoma rate with interhospital variability (IHV) depending on surgical technique, with pelvic sepsis, unplanned reinterventions and readmissions as secondary outcomes. METHOD Patients who underwent open or minimally invasive resection of rectal cancer (lower border below the sigmoid take-off) in 67 Dutch centres in 2016 were included in this cross-sectional cohort study. RESULTS Among 2530 patients, 1470 underwent a restorative resection (58%), 356 a Hartmann's procedure (14%, IHV 0%-42%) and 704 an abdominoperineal resection (28%, IHV 3%-60%). Median follow-up was 51 months. The overall permanent stoma rate at last follow-up was 50% (IHV 13%-79%) and the unintentional permanent stoma rate, permanent stoma after a restorative procedure or an unplanned Hartmann's procedure, was 11% (IHV 0%-29%). A total of 2165 patients (86%) underwent a minimally invasive resection: 1760 conventional (81%), 170 transanal (8%) and 235 robot-assisted (11%). An anastomosis was created in 59%, 80% and 66%, with corresponding unintentional permanent stoma rates of 12%, 24% and 14% (p = 0.001), respectively. When corrected for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, cTNM, distance to the anorectal junction and neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, the minimally invasive technique was not associated with an unintended permanent stoma (p = 0.071) after a restorative procedure. CONCLUSION A remarkable IHV in the permanent stoma rate after rectal cancer resection was found. No beneficial influence of transanal or robot-assisted laparoscopy on the unintentional permanent stoma rate was found, although this might be caused by the surgical learning curve. A reduction in IHV and improving preoperative counselling for decision-making for restorative procedures are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sanne-Marije J A Hazen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Imaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eline G M van Geffen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Imaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Tania C Sluckin
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Imaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geerard L Beets
- Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Wernard A A Borstlap
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Esther C J Consten
- Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
- Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Roel Hompes
- Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jurriaan B Tuynman
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Imaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Johannes H W de Wilt
- Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Pieter J Tanis
- Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Imaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Miranda Kusters
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Imaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Langenfeld SJ, Davis BR, Vogel JD, Davids JS, Temple LKF, Cologne KG, Hendren S, Hunt S, Garcia Aguilar J, Feingold DL, Lightner AL, Paquette IM. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Rectal Cancer 2023 Supplement. Dis Colon Rectum 2024; 67:18-31. [PMID: 37647138 DOI: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000003057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/01/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Sean J Langenfeld
- Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
| | - Bradley R Davis
- Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Jon D Vogel
- Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | | | - Larissa K F Temple
- Colorectal Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Kyle G Cologne
- Department of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Samantha Hendren
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Steven Hunt
- Department of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Julio Garcia Aguilar
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Daniel L Feingold
- Department of Surgery, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Amy L Lightner
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Ian M Paquette
- Department of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Geitenbeek RTJ, Burghgraef TA, Broekman M, Schop BPA, Lieverse TGF, Hompes R, Havenga K, Postma MJ, Consten ECJ. Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0289090. [PMID: 37506122 PMCID: PMC10381040 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2023] [Accepted: 07/11/2023] [Indexed: 07/30/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria. RESULTS 12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used. CONCLUSION Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ritchie T J Geitenbeek
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Groningen University Medical Center, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Thijs A Burghgraef
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Groningen University Medical Center, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Mark Broekman
- Department of Surgery, Groningen University Medical Center, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Bram P A Schop
- Department of Surgery, Groningen University Medical Center, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Tom G F Lieverse
- Department of Surgery, Groningen University Medical Center, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Roel Hompes
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Location Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Klaas Havenga
- Department of Surgery, Groningen University Medical Center, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten J Postma
- Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
- Department of Economics, Econometrics & Finance, Faculty of Economics & Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Esther C J Consten
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Groningen University Medical Center, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Smalbroek B, Geitenbeek R, Burghgraef T, Dijksman L, Hol J, Rutgers M, Crolla R, van Geloven N, Leijtens J, Polat F, Pronk A, Verdaasdonk E, Tuynman J, Sietses C, Postma M, Hompes R, Consten E, Smits A. A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres. ANNALS OF SURGERY OPEN 2023; 4:e263. [PMID: 37600875 PMCID: PMC10431334 DOI: 10.1097/as9.0000000000000263] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2023] [Accepted: 01/16/2023] [Indexed: 03/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview. Method This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis. Results In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Conclusion Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bo Smalbroek
- From the Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
- Department of Value Based Healthcare, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Ritchie Geitenbeek
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Thijs Burghgraef
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Lea Dijksman
- Department of Value Based Healthcare, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Hol
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Gelderse Vallei, Ede, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marieke Rutgers
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rogier Crolla
- Department of Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jeroen Leijtens
- Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, The Netherlands
| | - Fatih Polat
- Department of Surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Apollo Pronk
- Department of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Emiel Verdaasdonk
- Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands
| | - Jurriaan Tuynman
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Colin Sietses
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Gelderse Vallei, Ede, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten Postma
- Department of Health Sciences, Unit of Global Health, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
- Department of Economics, Econometrics & Finance, University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics & Business, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Roel Hompes
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Gelderse Vallei, Ede, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Esther Consten
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Anke Smits
- From the Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Uehara K, Ogura A, Murata Y, Sando M, Mukai T, Aiba T, Yamamura T, Nakamura M. Current status of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer and the expanding indications of the transanal approach for extended pelvic surgeries. Dig Endosc 2023; 35:243-254. [PMID: 36342054 DOI: 10.1111/den.14464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2022] [Accepted: 11/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has been rapidly accepted as a promising surgical approach to the distal rectum. The benefits include ease of access to the bottom of the deep pelvis linearly over a short distance in order to easily visualize the important anatomy. Furthermore, the distal resection margins can be secured under direct vision. Additionally, a two-team approach combining taTME with a transabdominal approach could decrease the operative time and conversion rate. Although taTME was expected to become more rapidly popularized worldwide, enthusiasm for it has stalled due to unfamiliar intraoperative complications, a lack of oncologic evidence from randomized trials, and the widespread use of robotic surgery. While international registries have reported favorable short- and medium-term outcomes from taTME, a Norwegian national study reported a high local recurrence rate of 9.5%. The characteristics of the recurrences included rapid, multifocal growth in the pelvis, which was quite different from recurrences following traditional transabdominal TME; thus, the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Group reached a consensus for a temporary moratorium on the performance of taTME. To ensure acceptable baseline quality and patient safety, taTME should be performed by well-trained colorectal surgeons. Although the appropriate indications for taTME remain controversial, the transanal approach is extremely important as a means of goal setting in difficult TME cases and as an aid to the transabdominal approach in various types of extended pelvic surgeries. The benefits in transanal lateral lymph node dissection and pelvic exenteration are presented herein.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kay Uehara
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
| | - Atsushi Ogura
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
| | - Yuki Murata
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
| | - Masanori Sando
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
| | - Toshiki Mukai
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
| | - Toshisada Aiba
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
| | - Takeshi Yamamura
- Department of Gastroenterology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
| | - Masanao Nakamura
- Department of Gastroenterology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
| |
Collapse
|