Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

Prediction of postoperative complications following transanal total mesorectal excision in middle and low rectal cancer: development and internal validation of a clinical prediction model

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to develop a nomogram for the personalized prediction of postoperative complication risks in patients with middle and low rectal cancer who are undergoing transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). This tool aims to assist clinicians in early identification of high-risk patients and in addressing preoperative risk factors to enhance surgical safety.

METHODS

In this case-control study, 207 patients diagnosed with middle and low rectal cancer and undergoing taTME between February 2018 and November 2023 at The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University were included. Independent risk factors for postoperative complications were analyzed using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression and multifactorial logistic regression models. A predictive nomogram was constructed using R Studio.

RESULTS

Among the 207 patients, 57 (27.5%) experienced postoperative complications. The LASSO and multifactorial logistic regression analyses identified operation time (OR = 1.010, P = 0.007), smoking history (OR = 9.693, P < 0.001), anastomotic technique (OR = 0.260, P = 0.004), and ASA score (OR = 9.077, P = 0.051) as significant predictors. These factors were integrated into the nomogram. The model's accuracy was validated through receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration curves, consistency indices, and decision curve analysis.

CONCLUSION

The developed nomogram, incorporating operation time, smoking history, anastomotic technique, and ASA score, effectively forecasts postoperative complication risks in taTME procedures. It is a valuable tool for clinicians to identify patients at heightened risk and initiate timely interventions, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Analysis of Bacterial Culture of Fluid in the Surgical Area in Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision and Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision

Purpose: To investigate the clinical value of the bacterial culture of fluid in the surgical area in laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision (Lap-taTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (Lap-TME). Methods: Clinical data of 106 patients with rectal cancer who had undergone surgery were retrospectively collected, including 56 patients in the Lap-taTME group and 50 patients in the Lap-TME group. In the Lap-taTME group, the initial pelvic fluid, the rectal cavity fluid after purse-string suture, and the pelvic cavity fluid after anastomosis were collected and recorded as culture No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, respectively. In the Lap-TME group, culture No. 1 and No. 3 were collected as done in the Lap-taTME group. The culture results and postoperative complications were statistically analyzed. Results: The positive rate of culture No. 1 was zero in both groups, and there were 6 cases (10.7%) with positive culture No. 2 in the Lap-taTME group. However, the number of patients with positive culture No. 3 (7, 12.5%) and cumulative positive culture cases (11, 19.6%) in the Lap-taTME group were significantly higher than those in the Lap-TME group (0) (all P < .05). Pelvic infection occurred in 4 (7.1%) of the 11 cases (19.6%) with positive culture in the Lap-taTME group, accounting for 36.4% (4/11). There were no significant intergroup differences in anastomotic leakage and pelvic infection (all P > .05). Conclusion: Positive bacterial culture of fluid during Lap-taTME indicates an increased risk of pelvic infection after operation. Lap-taTME is more prone to intraoperative contamination than Lap-TME but does not significantly increase the risk of postoperative pelvic infection.

Local Recurrence-Free Survival After TaTME: A Canadian Institutional Experience

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision is a novel surgical treatment for mid to low rectal cancers. Norwegian population data have raised concerns about local recurrence in patients treated with transanal total mesorectal excision.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze local recurrence and disease-free survival in patients treated by transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer at a high-volume tertiary center.

DESIGN

This retrospective study used a prospectively maintained institutional transanal total mesorectal excision database. Patient demographics, treatment, and outcomes data were analyzed. Local recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a single academic institution in Vancouver, Canada.

PATIENTS

All patients treated by transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma between 2014 and 2022 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was local recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2022, 306 patients were treated by transanal total mesorectal excision at St. Paul's Hospital. Of these, 279 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 62 years (SD ± 12.3), and 66.7% of patients were men. Restorative resection was achieved in 97.5% of patients, with a conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery of 6.8%. The composite optimal pathological outcome was 93.9%. The median follow-up was 26 months (interquartile range, 12-47), and 82.8% of patients achieved reestablishment of GI continuity to date. The overall local recurrence rate was 4.7% (n = 13). The estimated 2-year local recurrence-free survival rate was 95.0% (95% CI, 92-98) and the estimated 5-year local recurrence-free survival rate was 94.5% (95% CI, 91-98).

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the generalizability of a Canadian population.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent European data have challenged the presumed oncologic safety of transanal total mesorectal excision. Although the learning curve for this procedure is challenging and poor outcomes are associated with low volume, this high-volume single-center study confirms acceptable oncologic outcomes consistent with the current standard. See Video Abstract .

SOBREVIDA SIN RECIDIVA DESPUS DE TATME EXPERIENCIA INSTITUCIONAL CANADIENSE

ANTECEDENTES:La excisión total del mesorecto por vía transanal es un tratamiento quirúrgico novedoso para los cánceres de recto medio a bajo. Estudios sobre la población noruega han generado preocupación debido a la recidiva local en pacientes tratados con excisión total del mesorecto por vía transanal.OBJETIVO:Nuestra finalidad fué de analizar la recidiva local y la sobrevida libre de enfermedad en pacientes tratados mediante la excisión total del mesorecto por vía transanal, debido a un cáncer de recto en un centro terciario de alto volúmen.DISEÑO:El presente estudio retrospectivo, utiliza una base de datos institucional sobre la excisión total del mesorecto por vía transanal mantenida prospectivamente. Se analizaron los datos demográficos, de tratamiento y los resultados de los pacientes sometidos a la técnica mencionada. La recidiva local, la sobrevida libre de enfermedad y la sobrevida global se analizaron mediante el modelo de Kaplan-Meier.AJUSTES:El estudio se llevó a cabo en una sola institución académica en Vancouver, Canadá.PARTICIPANTES:Se incluyeron todos los pacientes tratados mediante excisión total del mesorecto por vía transanal causado por adenocarcinomas de recto entre 2014 y 2022.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la sobrevida libre de recidiva local.RESULTADOS:Entre 2014 y 2022, 306 pacientes fueron tratados mediante la excisión total del mesorecto por vía transanal en el Hospital St. Paul. De estos, 279 pacientes cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. La edad media fue de 62 años (DE ± 12,3) y el 66,7% de los pacientes eran varones. La resección restauradora se logró en el 97,5% de los pacientes con una tasa de conversión de cirugía laparoscópica en laparotomía del 6,8%. El resultado patológico óptimo combinado fué del 93,9%. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 26 meses (rango intercuartil 12-47) y el 82,8% logró el restablecimiento de la continuidad gastrointestinal hasta la fecha. La tasa global de recidiva local fué del 4,7% (n = 13). La sobrevida libre de recidiva local estimada a los 2 años fué del 95,0% (IC del 95%: 92-98) y del 94,5% a los 5 años (IC del 95%: 91-98).LIMITACIONES:Las limitaciones incluyen la naturaleza retrospectiva del estudio y la generalización de una población canadiense.CONCLUSIONES:Datos europeos recientes han cuestionado la supuesta seguridad oncológica de la excisión total del mesorecto por vía transanal. Si bien la curva de aprendizaje de este procedimiento es muy desafiante y los malos resultados se asocian con un volumen bajo, el presente estudio, unicéntrico de gran volumen confirma los resultados oncológicos aceptables consistentes con el estándar actual. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Effectiveness of NOTES versus traditional techniques on surgical outcomes in adults with diverticulitis: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This review will evaluate the effectiveness of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)/hybrid NOTES versus traditional surgical techniques in the management of diverticular disease.

INTRODUCTION

Diverticular disease can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life, especially the changes affecting bowel function. Recurrent/severe symptoms may require surgery. Resections are invasive and can have significant operative complications. There has been a shift from an open resection to a more minimally invasive technique such as laparoscopy. Furthermore, the use of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic resection, using a transanal/transvaginal approach, has begun to be used in colorectal resections.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Eligible studies will include patients who underwent surgical resection for diverticular disease or diverticulitis. The review will consider studies that evaluate NOTES in the management of diverticular disease or diverticulitis. This will include hybrid procedures involving both NOTES and natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE), with the aid of laparoscopy/endoscopy/robotic equipment. Studies on participants under 18 years of age and presenting with non-diverticular pathologies will be excluded.

METHODS

This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Databases to be searched will include PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ANZCTR, with no language limitations. The reference lists of included studies will be screened for additional studies. This review will preferentially consider experimental and quasi-experimental study designs. Two reviewers will conduct critical appraisal and data extraction. Studies will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analyses.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023420771.

Two-Team Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision and En Bloc Resection of the Lateral Pelvic Lymph Nodes, Main Iliac Vessels, and Pelvic Plexus for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer With Lateral Lymph Node Metastasis

BACKGROUND

Here, we describe the precise surgical technique for a novel procedure involving 2-team transanal total mesorectal excision with en bloc lateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) dissection combined with resection of the involved main internal iliac vessels and pelvic plexus.

METHODS

From September 2020 to May 2023, 4 patients underwent the procedure at our hospital.

RESULTS

The operation time and blood loss were 272 to 412 minutes and 10 to 124 mL, respectively. No patients required conversion to open surgery or exhibited Clavien-Dindo grade III or worse postoperative complications, although 2 developed grade II urinary dysfunction. All surgical margins were negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel 2-team method can facilitate safe and satisfactory surgery, even for highly advanced rectal cancer. The transanal approach offers excellent visibility and operability, even during LPLN and adjacent structure dissection. Furthermore, initial dissection of the distal branches of the iliac vessels prevents excessive lymphatic tissue congestion, facilitating easier, and clearer dissection.

Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes

Anatomical and physiological differences exist between sex, leading to variations in how diseases, such as rectal cancer, are prevalence and treatment outcomes of diseases including rectal cancer. In particular, in the case of rectal cancer, anatomical differences may be associated with surgical challenges, and these factors are believed to be important contributors to potential disparities in postoperative recovery, associated complications, and oncological outcomes between male and female patients. However, there is still ongoing debate regarding this matter. Significantly, the male pelvic anatomy is distinguished by its narrower dimensions, which can present surgical challenges and impede visual access during operative procedures, rendering it more complex than surgical interventions in the female pelvis. As a result, this anatomical difference leads to a greater occurrence of postoperative complications, such as anastomotic leakage. Moreover, the pelvis houses nerves that are vital for urinary and genital functions, underscoring the need to assess the potential risks of sexual and urinary dysfunction in rectal cancer surgery. These postoperative complications can significantly impact the quality of life; therefore, it is imperative to perform surgery with an understanding of the structural differences between sexes. Therefore, to address the limitations imposed by anatomical structures, new approaches such as robotic surgery, trans-anal total mesorectal excision, and intraoperative neuromonitoring are being introduced. Furthermore, it is essential to conduct research into fundamental mechanisms that may give rise to differences in surgical outcomes and oncological results between sexes. By comprehending the disparities between males and females, we can advance toward personalized treatments. Consequently, this review outlines variations in surgical approaches, complications, and treatments for rectal cancer in male and female patients.

Contemporary management of rectal cancer

The management of rectal cancer has undergone significant changes over the past 50 years, and this has been associated with major improvements in overall outcomes and quality of life. From standardization of total mesorectal excision to refinements in radiation delivery and shifting of chemoradiotherapy treatment to favor a neoadjuvant approach, as well as the development of targeted chemotherapeutics, these management strategies have continually aimed to achieve locoregional and systemic control while limiting adverse effects and enhance overall survival. This article highlights evolving aspects of rectal cancer therapy including improved staging modalities, total neoadjuvant therapy, the role of short-course and more selective radiotherapy strategies, as well as organ preservation. We also discuss the evolving role of minimally invasive surgery and comment on lateral pelvic lymph node dissection.

Key message

Rectal cancer management is constantly evolving through refinements in radiation timing and delivery, modification of chemoradiotherapy treatment schedules, and increasing utilization of minimally invasive surgical techniques and organ preservation strategies. This manuscript aims to provide a synopsis of recent changes in the management of rectal cancer, highlighting contemporary modifications in neoadjuvant approaches and surgical management to enhance the knowledge of surgeons who care for this challenging population.

Is survival after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) worse than that after traditional total mesorectal excision? A retrospective propensity score-adjusted cohort study

PURPOSE

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was developed to provide better vision during resection of the mesorectum. Conflicting results have shown an increase in local recurrence and shorter survival after taTME. This study compared the outcomes of taTME and abdominal (open, laparoscopic, robotic) total mesorectal excision (abTME).

METHODS

Patients who underwent taTME or abTME for stages I-III rectal cancer and who received an anastomosis were included. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively conducted database was performed. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Risk factors were adjusted by propensity score matching (PSM). The secondary endpoints were local recurrence rates and combined poor pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2020, a total of 189 patients underwent taTME, and 119 underwent abTME; patients were followed up for a mean of 54.7 (SD 24.2) and 78.4 (SD 34.8) months, respectively (p < 0.001). The 5-year survival rates after taTME and abTME were not significantly different after PSM: OS: 78.2% vs. 88.6% (p = 0.073), CSS: 87.4% vs. 92.1% (p = 0.359), and DFS: 69.3% vs. 80.9% (p = 0.104), respectively. No difference in the local recurrence rate was observed (taTME, n = 10 (5.3%); abTME, n = 10 (8.4%); p = 0.280). Combined poor pathological outcomes were more frequent after abTME (n = 36, 34.3%) than after taTME (n = 35, 19.6%) (p = 0.006); this difference was nonsignificant according to multivariate analysis (p = 0.404).

CONCLUSION

taTME seems to be a good treatment option for patients with rectal cancer and is unlikely to significantly affect local recurrence or survival. However, further investigations concerning the latter are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0496910).

Outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Transanal dissection is increasingly used in laparoscopic surgery for total mesorectal excision of lower rectal cancers. Several studies compared outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection, yet there is a paucity of high-quality evidence. This meta-analysis aimed to provide a pooled comparative analysis of outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection based on evidence from randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2022-compliant systematic review of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through March 2023. The Medical Subject Headings terms used in the search were Rectal neoplasms, Proctectomy, Laparoscopy, and Transanal. The main outcomes included operative and pathologic outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias version 2 tool, and certainty of the evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary study outcome was conversion to open surgery.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials (1,339 patients; median age 61.2 years) were included; 671 patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection, and 668 underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection. Both groups were similar in age, body mass index, and disease stage, but the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection group had a higher male-to-female ratio, received neoadjuvant therapy and had a hand-sewn anastomosis more often. Patients who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection had lower conversion rates (odds ratio = 0.179; P = .001), a higher likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision (odds ratio = 1.435; P = .025), and fewer harvested lymph nodes (weighted mean difference = -1.926; P = .035). The groups had similar operative times (weighted mean difference = -3.476; P = .398), total complications (odds ratio = 0.94; P = .665), major complications (odds ratio = 1.112; P = .66), anastomotic leak (odds ratio = 0.67; P = .432), positive circumferential resection margin (odds ratio = 0.549; P = .155), and positive distal margins (odds ratio = 0.559; P = .171).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection was associated with lower odds of conversion to open surgery, greater likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision, and fewer harvested lymph nodes than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

Articles included searching through the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of science for articles on LaTME and TaTME. 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 (CRD42022380067).

RESULTS

There are 8761 participants included in 33 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent LaTME had no statistical difference in operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay, over complications, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, anastomotic stenosis, wound infection, circumferential resection margin, distal resection margin, major low anterior resection syndrom, lymph node yield, loop ileostomy, and diverting ileostomy. There are similarities between LaTME and TaTME for 2-year DFS rate, 2-year OS rate, distant metastasis rat, and local recurrence rate. However, patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rates (RR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; I2 = 10.6%, P = .019) but TaTME had less end colostomy (RR 1.96; 95% CI: 1.19-3.23; I2 = 0%, P = .008).

CONCLUSION

This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the differences in safety and effectiveness between LaTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer through meta-analysis. Patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rate but TaTME had less end colostomy. There is no difference in other aspects. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Local versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for stage I rectal cancer. Despite major advances and increasing enthusiasm for modern endoscopic local excision (LE), uncertainty remains regarding its oncologic equivalence and safety relative to radical resection (RR).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the oncologic, operative, and functional outcomes of modern endoscopic LE compared to RR surgery in adults with stage I rectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to present), four trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials database), two thesis and proceedings databases, and relevant scientific societies' publications in February 2022. We performed handsearching and reference checking and contacted study authors of ongoing trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with stage I rectal cancer comparing any modern LE techniques to any RR techniques with or without the use of neo/adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We calculated hazard ratios (HR) and standard errors for time-to-event data and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, using generic inverse variance and random-effects methods. We regrouped surgical complications from the included studies into major and minor according to the standard Clavien-Dindo classification. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs were included in data synthesis with a combined total of 266 participants with stage I rectal cancer (T1-2N0M0), if not stated otherwise. Surgery was performed in university hospital settings. The mean age of participants was above 60, and median follow-up ranged from 17.5 months to 9.6 years. Regarding the use of co-interventions, one study used neoadjuvant CRT in all participants (T2 cancers); one study used short-course radiotherapy in the LE group (T1-T2 cancers); one study used adjuvant CRT selectively in high-risk patients undergoing RR (T1-T2 cancers); and the fourth study did not use any CRT (T1 cancers). We assessed the overall risk of bias as high for oncologic and morbidity outcomes across studies. All studies had at least one key domain with a high risk of bias. None of the studies reported separate outcomes for T1 versus T2 or for high-risk features. Low-certainty evidence suggests that RR may result in an improvement in disease-free survival compared to LE (3 trials, 212 participants; HR 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 4.24). This would translate into a three-year disease-recurrence risk of 27% (95% CI 14 to 50%) versus 15% after LE and RR, respectively. Regarding sphincter function, only one study provided objective results and reported short-term deterioration in stool frequency, flatulence, incontinence, abdominal pain, and embarrassment about bowel function in the RR group. At three years, the LE group had superiority in overall stool frequency, embarrassment about bowel function, and diarrhea. Local excision may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR (3 trials, 207 participants; HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; very low-certainty evidence). We did not pool studies for local recurrence, but the included studies individually reported comparable local recurrence rates for LE and RR (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if the risk of major postoperative complications may be lower with LE compared with RR (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.28; low-certainty evidence; corresponding to 5.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 14.1%) risk for LE versus 11% for RR). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of minor postoperative complications is probably lower after LE (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.85); corresponding to an absolute risk of 14% (95% CI 8% to 26%) for LE compared to 30.1% for RR. One study reported an 11% rate of temporary stoma after LE versus 82% in the RR group. Another study reported a 46% rate of temporary or permanent stomas after RR and none after LE. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of LE compared with RR on quality of life. Only one study reported standard quality of life function, in favor of LE, with a 90% or greater probability of superiority in overall quality of life, role, social, and emotional functions, body image, and health anxiety. Other studies reported a significantly shorter postoperative period to oral intake, bowel movement, and off-bed activities in the LE group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, LE may decrease disease-free survival in early rectal cancer. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that LE may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR for the treatment of stage I rectal cancer. Based on low-certainty evidence, it is unclear if LE may have a lower major complication rate, but probably causes a large reduction in minor complication rate. Limited data based on one study suggest better sphincter function, quality of life, or genitourinary function after LE. Limitations exist with respect to the applicability of these findings. We identified only four eligible studies with a low number of total participants, subjecting the results to imprecision. Risk of bias had a serious impact on the quality of evidence. More RCTs are needed to answer our review question with greater certainty and to compare local and distant metastasis rates. Data on important patient outcomes such as sphincter function and quality of life are very limited. Results of currently ongoing trials will likely impact the results of this review. Future trials should accurately report and compare outcomes according to the stage and high-risk features of rectal tumors, and evaluate quality of life, sphincter, and genitourinary outcomes. The role of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy as an emerging co-intervention for improving oncologic outcomes after LE needs to be further defined.

Case report on a rare complication after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal malignancy vesicorectal fistula

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) represents the latest surgical approach in rectal cancer management. We present a rare case of vesicorectal fistula (VRF) following a complication of TaTME surgery.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 67-year-old male underwent a Hartmann's procedure for perforated rectosigmoid cancer in 2019. He was lost to follow-up and re-presented in 2021 with synchronous cancer of the transverse colon and rectum. A two-team surgical approach was utilized: open subtotal colectomy (transabdominal approach) with concurrent excision of rectal stump (TaTME approach). Intraoperatively, an inadvertent bladder injury was identified and repaired. 8 months later, he re-presented with the passage of urine per rectum. Imaging and endoscopy revealed a VRF with cancer recurrence at the rectal stump.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

VRF is an uncommon complication of TaTME that carries a significant physical and psychological impact on the patient. While shown to be a safe and useful technique, the long-term oncological outcomes of TaTME are still awaited. Unique complications have been reported with TaTME, including gas embolism and injuries to the genitourinary structures, in which the latter caused the eventual VRF formation in our patient.

CONCLUSION

Revisional surgery for recurrent disease is challenging and can result in rare complications, especially in patients with distorted anatomy and when new surgical techniques are utilized. Radiotherapy further causes unpredictable tissue healing quality. The challenge remains for proper patient selection with individualization of surgical approaches, while keeping a close eye on the oncological outcomes of the patient.

Feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for low rectal cancer combined with transanal total mesorectal excision

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer is often challenging. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and robotic surgery have been introduced to overcome the technical difficulties in laparoscopic surgery and achieve more favorable outcomes. Hybrid robotic surgery, which combines TaTME with the abdominal robotic approach, incorporates the advantages of each of these surgical techniques and might achieve less invasive and safer surgery. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of hybrid robotic surgery with TaTME (hybrid TaTME).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 162 TaTME cases performed at our department from September 2016 to May 2022. Among them, 92 cases of conventional TaTME and 30 of hybrid TaTME were eligible. We used propensity score matching analysis (PSM) to adjust for patients' characteristics and compared the short-term outcomes of the two treatment groups.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven cases in each group were extracted using PSM. The operation time in hybrid TaTME was comparable to that in conventional TaTME. There was no significant difference in the postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. Other intra- and post-operative outcomes were also comparable between the two groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the curative resection and recurrence rates.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid TaTME for low rectal cancer was as favorable as conventional TaTME in producing satisfactory short-term outcomes. However, furthermore, larger-scale studies conducted over longer study periods are needed to evaluate the validity of the findings.

Current Surgical Methods in Local Rectal Excision

Background

The treatment of rectal cancer has evolved with the advancement of surgical techniques. Less invasive approaches are becoming more accepted as the primary treatment method.

Summary

Such methods as transanal excision, transanal endoscopic microsurgery, and transanal minimally invasive surgery can reduce morbidity and mortality rates. However, not all patients are suitable candidates for these procedures, and proper diagnostics are necessary to establish indications. Compared to total mesorectal excision, transanal excision techniques have been shown to have fewer complications and comorbidities while still being able to remove cancerous tissue entirely. Transanal excision is the simplest method, where the operator removes visible rectal lesions. The basic principle of transanal endoscopic microsurgery is to dilate the rectum mechanically and by air insufflation and then use special surgical instruments to remove suspicious lesions under the vision of a telescope. Transanal minimally invasive surgery combines transanal endoscopic microsurgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery, making the hard-to-reach proximal rectum accessible to classic laparoscopic instruments.

Key Message

Local excision techniques, when used as a monotherapy for treating patients with rectal cancer, have established themselves as a curative and less radical treatment for strictly selected patients with early rectal carcinoma, leading to improved quality of life. When combined with other modalities such as neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, total neoadjuvant therapy, and immunotherapy, transanal surgery can be offered to patients with locally advanced rectal cancer as part of the organ preservation strategy. This review will discuss the patient selection and technical aspects of transanal surgery, showcasing its current role in treating rectal carcinoma.

Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic vs robotic vs transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved using open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or transanal techniques (TaTME). However, the optimal approach for access remains controversial. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess operative and oncological outcomes of all four surgical techniques.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched systematically from inception to September 2020, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two TME surgical techniques. A network meta-analysis using a Bayesian random-effects framework and mixed treatment comparison was performed. Primary outcomes were the rate of clear circumferential resection margin (CRM), defined as > 1 mm from the closest tumour to the cut edge of the tissue, and completeness of mesorectal excision. Secondary outcomes included radial and distal resection margin distance, postoperative complications, locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the relative effectiveness of each intervention for each outcome. The higher the SUCRA value, the higher the likelihood that the intervention is in the top rank or one of the top ranks.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs with a total of 6151 patients were included. Compared with OpTME, there was no difference in the rates of clear CRM: LapTME RR = 0.99 (95% (Credible interval) CrI 0.97-1.0); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1). There was no difference in the rates of complete mesorectal excision: LapTME RR = 0.98 (95% CrI 0.98-1.1); RoTME RR = 1.1 (95% CrI 0.98-1.4); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.91-1.2). RoTME was associated with improved distal resection margin distance compared to other techniques (SUCRA 99%). LapTME had a higher rate of conversion to open surgery when compared with RoTME: RoTME RR = 0.23 (95% CrI 0.034-0.70). Length of stay was shortest in RoTME compared to other surgical approaches: OpTME mean difference in days (MD) 3.3 (95% CrI 0.12-6.0); LapTME MD 1.7 (95% CrI - 1.1-4.4); TaTME MD 1.3 (95% CrI - 5.2-7.4). There were no differences in 5-year overall survival (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.74, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.7, 95% CrI 0.79, 3.4), disease-free survival rates (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.76, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.52, 2.4), or anastomotic leakage (LapTME RR = 0.92 (95% CrI 0.63, 1.1); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.48, 1.8); TaTME RR = 0.53 (95% CrI 0.19, 1.2). The overall quality of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments across all outcomes including primary and secondary outcomes was deemed low.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients eligible for a RCT, RoTME achieved improved distal resection margin distance and a shorter length of hospital stay. No other differences were observed in oncological or recovery parameters between (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or trans-anal TME (TaTME). However, the overall quality of evidence across all outcomes was deemed low.

Trans-anal surgery with the taTME technique for rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

Rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) surgery is often challenging owing to the anatomical constraints of the narrow pelvis and tumor hugeness. Despite the increasing number of patients undergoing trans-anal total mesorectal excision (taTME) globally, the feasibility of trans-anal surgery with the taTME technique for rectal GISTs remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of trans-anal surgery with the taTME technique for rectal GISTs.

METHODS

Using a prospectively collected database, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical findings, surgical outcomes, pathological outcomes, urinary and anal functions, and prognoses of patients who underwent trans-anal surgery with the taTME technique for primary rectal GISTs at the National Cancer Center Hospital East from September 2014 to March 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients with primary rectal GISTs were included in this study. The median distance from the anal verge to the lower edge of the tumor was 40 mm (range, 15-60 mm), and the median tumor size was 59 mm (range, 11-175 mm). Moreover, seven and 14 patients underwent one-team and two-team surgeries, respectively, with curative intent. Nineteen patients (90.5%) underwent anus-preserving surgery, and the urinary tracts were preserved in all cases. Two-team surgery showed a significantly lower blood loss volume and shorter operation time than one-team surgery (58 vs. 222 mL, P = 0.017; 184 vs 356 min, P = 0.041, respectively). The pathological negative-margin resection rate was 100%. During the follow-up period, no patient developed local GIST recurrence and one (4.8%) developed distant metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Trans-anal surgery with the taTME technique is feasible for rectal GISTs, and two-team surgery may be more advantageous than one-team surgery in terms of operation time and blood loss.

Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: a protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, most rectal tumours are treated open or minimally invasive, using laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision. However, insight into the total costs of these techniques is limited. Since all three techniques are currently being performed, including cost considerations in the choice of treatment technique may significantly impact future healthcare costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of evidence regarding costs in patients with rectal cancer following open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic search will be conducted for papers between January 2000 and March 2022. Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by four reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria list will be used for assessing risk of bias. Total costs of the different techniques, consisting of but not limited to, theatre, in-hospital and postoperative costs, will be the primary outcome.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required, as there is no collection of patient data at an individual level. Findings will be disseminated widely, through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021261125.

Assessment of mesorectal fascia status in MRI compared with circumferential resection margin after total mesorectal excision and predictors of involved margins

BACKGROUND

Circumferential resection margin is an important prognosticator for total mesorectal excision outcome. We investigated the status of mesorectal fascia on magnetic resonance imaging compared with circumferential resection margin on pathology and factors associated with status change.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery. Mesorectal fascia status on magnetic resonance imaging done before neoadjuvant therapy and circumferential resection margin status on pathology were compared. The study outcomes were factors associated with a margin status conversion between magnetic resonance imaging and pathology, and predictors of involved circumferential resection margin.

RESULTS

In total, 244 patients (average follow-up of 25.4 months) were included. Eighty-one (33.2%) patients had potentially involved mesorectal fascia in magnetic resonance imaging and 12 (4.9%) had involved circumferential resection margin in pathology. A total of 2.8% of patients had a conversion of clear mesorectal fascia in magnetic resonance imaging to involved circumferential resection margin. Abdominoperineal resection was significantly associated with this status change (odds ratio: 25, 95% confidence interval: 2.4-255.8, P = .007). In total, 7.4% of patients with potentially involved mesorectal fascia had persistently involved circumferential resection margin. Lack of total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher, yet statistically insignificant, odds of persistently involved circumferential resection margin (odds ratio: 12, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-220.8, P = .09). The significant independent predictors of involved circumferential resection margin were body mass index (odds ratio: 1.2, P = .016) and abdominoperineal resection (odds ratio: 4.22, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Change of clear mesorectal fascia in magnetic resonance imaging to an involved circumferential resection margin in pathology was recorded in 2.8% of patients; abdominoperineal resection might be associated with this change. Approximately 7% of patients had persistent involvement of circumferential resection margin as determined by pathology. Omission of total neoadjuvant therapy might be associated with persistent margin involvement.

Indications and Technical Considerations for Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

A 53-year-old man presented after noting bright red blood from his rectum. On examination, he was found to have a mass 1 cm above the anal sphincter complex. He had a BMI of 40 kg/m2 and was otherwise healthy. MRI revealed a T2/early T3 lesion with extramural venous invasion and suspicious perirectal lymph nodes. Low rectal cancer was diagnosed. He underwent long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation with good but not complete clinical response. Given his obesity and the low nature of his rectal cancer, a transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was planned.

Intraoperative holographic image-guided surgery in a transanal approach for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Urethral injury is one of the most important complications in transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in male patients with rectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to investigate holographic image-guided surgery in TaTME.

METHODS

Polygon (stereolithography) files were created and exported from SYNAPSE VINCENT, and then uploaded into the Holoeyes MD system (Holoeyes Inc., Tokyo, Japan). After uploading the data, the three-dimensional image was automatically converted into a case-specific hologram. The hologram was then installed into the head mount display, HoloLens (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). The surgeons and assistants wore the HoloLens when they performed TaTME.

RESULTS

In a Wi-Fi-enabled operating room, each surgeon, wearing a HoloLens, shared the same hologram and succeeded in adjusting the hologram by making simple hand gestures from their respective angles. The hologram contributed to better comprehension of the positional relationships between the urethra and the surrounding pelvic organs during surgery. All surgeons were able to properly determine the dissection line.

CONCLUSIONS

This first experience suggests that intraoperative holograms contributed to reducing the risk of urethral injury and understanding transanal anatomy. Intraoperative holograms have the potential to become a new next-generation surgical support tool for use in spatial awareness and the sharing of information between surgeons.

Oncologic Outcomes After Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent series have raised concerns about the oncologic outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer. There is a paucity of large data sets from the United States to contribute to the ongoing international discourse.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the rate of local recurrence and other oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective review of patients undergoing transanal total mesorectal excision for primary rectal cancer from January 2014 to December 2019.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single academic tertiary care medical center in the United States.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients aged ≥18 years undergoing surgical resection for primary rectal cancer were selected.

INTERVENTION

The transanal total mesorectal excision procedures were performed utilizing a 2-team approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were pathologic quality, local and distant recurrence, treatment-related complications, and overall- and cancer-specific survival.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine consecutive patients were included. The median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 50-64), and median BMI was 28 kg/m2 (interquartile range, 24.6-32.4). The mesorectum was complete in 69 patients (87.3%), nearly complete in 9 (11.4%), and incomplete in 1 (1.3%). There was circumferential resection margin involvement (<1 mm) in 4 patients (5.1%), and no patients had a positive distal margin (<1 mm) or intraoperative rectal perforation. Composite optimal pathology was achieved in 94.9% of specimens. Median follow-up was 29 months (range, 6-68). There were no local recurrences. Distant metastases were found in 10 (13.5%) patients and diagnosed after a median of 14 months (range, 0.6-53). Disease-free survival was 91.2% at 2 years, and overall survival was 94.7% at 2 years.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design, a single center, and relatively short follow-up period were limitations of this study.

CONCLUSION

The oncologic outcomes of this cohort support the use of transanal total mesorectal excision in the surgical management of mid to low rectal cancer at centers with appropriate expertise. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B723.

RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS DESPUS DE LA EXCISIN TOTAL DEL MESORRECTO POR VA TRANSANAL EN CASOS DE CNCER RECTAL

ANTECEDENTES:Estudios recientes han suscitado preocupación sobre los resultados oncológicos de la excisión total del mesorecto por vía transanal en casos de cáncer de recto medio y bajo. Existe una gran escasez de conjuntos de datos en los Estados Unidos, para contribuir en el actual discurso internacional sobre el tema.OBJETIVO:Investigar la tasa de recurrencia local y otros resultados oncológicos en pacientes sometidos a una excisión total del mesorrecto por vía transanal por adenocarcinomas de recto.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva de pacientes sometidos a excisión total del mesorecto por vía transanal en casos de cáncer de recto primario desde enero de 2014 hasta diciembre de 2019.AJUSTE:Centro médico Universitario de atención terciaria único en los Estados Unidos.PACIENTES:Aquellos pacientes consecutivos de ≥ 18 años de edad, sometidos a resección quirúrgica por cáncer de recto primario.INTERVENCIÓN:Los procedimientos de excisión total del mesorecto por vía transanal se realizaron utilizando un enfoque de dos equipos.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados primarios fueron la calidad anatomo-patológica de las piezas, la recidiva local y a distancia, las complicaciones relacionadas con el tratamiento y la sobrevida global específica para el cáncer.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 79 pacientes consecutivos. La mediana de edades fue de 58 años (IQR, 50-64) y la mediana del índice de masa corporal fue de 28 kg / m (IQR, 24,6-32,4). El mesorrecto se encontraba completo en 69 pacientes (87,3%), casi completo en 9 (11,4%) e incompleto en 1 (1,3%). Hubo afectación de CRM (<1 mm) en 4 pacientes (5,1%) y ningún paciente tuvo un margen distal positivo (<1 mm) o perforación rectal intraoperatoria. La histopatología óptima compuesta se logró en el 94,9% de las muestras. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 29 meses (rango 6-68). No se presentaron recurrencias locales. Se encontraron metástasis a distancia en 10 (13,5%) pacientes y se diagnosticaron después de una mediana de 14 meses (rango 0,6-53). La sobrevida libre de enfermedad fue del 91,2% a los 2 años y la sobrevida global fue del 94,7% a los 2 años.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, unicéntrico y período de seguimiento relativamente corto.CONCLUSIÓN:Los resultados oncológicos de este estudio de cohortes, apoyan la realización de excisión total del mesorecto por vía transanal para el tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer de recto medio y bajo, en centros con la experiencia adecuada. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B723. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

The impact of multiple firings on the risk of anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive restorative rectal cancer resection and the impact of anastomotic leakage on long-term survival: a population-based study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the anastomotic leakage (AL) rate and predictors for AL following minimally invasive restorative rectal resection (RRR) among rectal cancer patients managed according to up-to-date standardized treatment. Furthermore, we explored the impact of symptomatic AL on long-term survival.

METHODS

The study cohort was rectal cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive RRR in Central Denmark Region between 2013 and 2017. Data was retrieved from a prospective clinical quality database and supplemented with data from medical records. The AL rate was calculated as the proportion of patients who developed symptomatic AL within 30 days. Predictors for AL were identified through logistic regression. The impact of AL on long-term survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression.

RESULTS

AL occurred in 15.1% of 604 patients. The AL rate for males was 20.1% (95% CI 16.3-24.3) and 5.0% (95% CI 2.4-9.0) for females. Odds ratio (OR) of AL in females vs. males was 0.25 (95% CI 0.12-0.51). The use of at least three firings when transecting the rectum was associated with OR of 2.71 (95% CI 1.17-6.26) for AL. The 5-year survival for patients with vs. those without AL was 76.1% (95%CI 65.1-84.0) and 83.6% (95%CI 79.8-86.7), corresponding to adjusted hazard ratio of 1.43 (95%CI 0.84-2.41).

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic AL is still a challenge in a standardized setting using minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer patients undergoing RRR, especially in men. Multiple firings should be avoided in transection of the rectum with an endoscopic stapler. AL had a statistical non-significant negative impact on survival.

Anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer surgery

The safety of colorectal surgery for oncological disease is steadily improving, but anastomotic leakage is still the most feared and devastating complication from both a surgical and oncological point of view. Anastomotic leakage affects the outcome of the surgery, increases the times and costs of hospitalization, and worsens the prognosis in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. Anastomotic leakage has a wide range of clinical features ranging from radiological only finding to peritonitis and sepsis with multi-organ failure. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin have been identified as early predictors of anastomotic leakage starting from postoperative day 2-3, but abdominal-pelvic computed tomography scan is still the gold standard for the diagnosis. Several treatments can be adopted for anastomotic leakage. However, there is not a universally accepted flowchart for the management, which should be individualized based on patient's general condition, anastomotic defect size and location, indication for primary resection and presence of the proximal stoma. Non-operative management is usually preferred in patients who underwent proximal faecal diversion at the initial operation. Laparoscopy can be attempted after minimal invasive surgery and can reduce surgical stress in patients allowing a definitive treatment. Reoperation for sepsis control is rarely necessary in those patients who already have a diverting stoma at the time of the leak, especially in extraperitoneal anastomoses. In patients without a stoma who do not require abdominal reoperation for a contained pelvic leak, there are several treatment options, including laparoscopic diverting ileostomy combined with trans-anal anastomotic tube drainage, percutaneous drainage or recently developed endoscopic procedures, such as stent or clip placement or endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy. We describe the current approaches to treat this complication, as well as the clinical tests necessary to diagnose and provide an effective therapy.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Anterior Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score Matched, Population-Based Study in Catalonia, Spain

BACKGROUND

The clinical value of transanal total mesorectal excision is debated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare short- and medium-term effects of transanal versus anterior total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

The study included all Catalonian public hospitals.

PATIENTS

All patients receiving transanal or anterior total mesorectal excision (open or laparoscopic) for nonmetastatic primary rectal cancer in 2015 to 2016 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data on vital status were collected to March 2019. Between-group differences were minimized by applying propensity score matching to baseline patient characteristics. Competing risk models were used to assess systemic and local recurrence along with death at 2 years, and multivariable Cox regression was used to assess 2-year disease-free survival. Results are expressed with their 95% CIs.

RESULTS

The final subsample was 537 patients receiving total mesorectal excision (transanal approach: n = 145; anterior approach: n = 392). Median follow-up was 39.2 months (interquartile range, 33.0-45.8). Accounting for death as a competing event, there was no association between transanal total mesorectal excision and local recurrence (matched subhazard ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.55-2.96). There were no statistical differences in the comparative rate of local recurrence (transanal: 1.77 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 0.76-3.34; anterior: 1.37 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 0.8-2.15) or mortality (transanal: 3.98 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 2.36-6.16; anterior: 2.99 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 2.1-4.07). Groups presented similar 2-year cumulative incidence of local recurrence (4.83% versus 3.57%) and disease-free survival (HR, 1.33; 95% CI 0.92-1.92).

LIMITATIONS

We used data only from the public system, the study is retrospective, and data on individual surgeons are not reported.

CONCLUSION

These population-based results support the use of either the transanal, open, or laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer in Catalonia. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B744.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL TRANSANAL VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ANTERIOR PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UN ESTUDIO POBLACIONAL CON EMPAREJAMIENTO DE PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIÓN EN CATALUÑA, ESPAÑA.

ANTECEDENTES

Se debate el valor clínico de la escisión mesorrectal total transanal.

OBJETIVO

Comparar los efectos a corto y mediano plazo de la escisión mesorrectal total transanal versus anterior para el cáncer de recto.

DISEO

Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico.

AJUSTE

El estudio incluyó a todos los hospitales públicos de Cataluña.

PACIENTES

Todos los pacientes no metastásicos que recibieron escisión mesorrectal total anterior o transanal (abierta o laparoscópica) por cáncer de recto primario en 2015-16.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION

Los datos sobre el estado vital se recopilaron hasta marzo de 2019. Las diferencias entre los grupos se minimizaron aplicando el emparejamiento de puntajes de propensión a las características iniciales del paciente. Se utilizaron modelos de riesgo competitivo para evaluar la recurrencia sistémica y local junto con la muerte a los dos años, y la regresión de Cox multivariable para evaluar la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a dos años. Los resultados se expresan con sus intervalos de confianza del 95%.

RESULTADOS

La submuestra final fue de 537 pacientes que recibieron escisión mesorrectal total (abordaje transanal: n = 145; abordaje anterior: n = 392). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 39,2 meses (rango intercuartílico 33,0-45,8). Teniendo en cuenta la muerte como un evento competitivo, no hubo asociación entre la escisión mesorrectal total transanal y la recurrencia local (cociente de subriesgo apareado 1,28, 0,55-2,96). No hubo diferencias estadísticas en la tasa comparativa de recurrencia local (transanal: 1,77 por 100 personas-año, 0,76-3,34; anterior: 1,37 por 100 personas-año, 0,8-2,15) o mortalidad (transanal: 3,98 por 100 personas-año, 2,36-6,16; anterior: 2,99 por 100 personas-año, 2,1-4,07). Los grupos presentaron una incidencia acumulada de dos años similar de recidiva local (4,83% frente a 3,57%, respectivamente) y supervivencia libre de enfermedad (índice de riesgo 1,33, 0,92-1,92).

LIMITACIONES

Utilizamos datos solo del sistema público, el estudio es retrospectivo y no se informan datos sobre cirujanos individuales.

CONCLUSIONES

Estos resultados poblacionales apoyan el uso del abordaje transanal, abierto o laparoscópico para el cáncer de recto en Cataluña. Consulte. Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B744. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

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.

Quality Indicators of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) for Rectal Cancer

Introduction Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has revolutionized the surgical techniques for lower-third rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to analyze the outcomes of quality indicators of TaTME for rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic TME (LaTME).

Methods A cohort prospective study with 50 (14 female and 36 male) patients, with a mean age of 67 (range: 55.75 to 75.25) years, who underwent surgery for rectal cancer. In total, 20 patients underwent TaTME, and 30, LaTME. Every TaTME procedure was performed by experienced colorectal surgeons. The sample was divided into two groups (TaTME and LaTME), and the quality indicators of the surgery for rectal cancer were analyzed.

Results There were no statistically significant differences regarding the patients and the main characteristics of the tumor (age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score, body mass index [BMI], tumoral stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and distance from the tumor to the external anal margin) between the two groups. The rates of: postoperative morbidity (TaTME: 35%; LaTME: 30%; p = 0.763); mortality (0%); anastomotic leak (TaTME: 10%; LaTME: 13%; p = 0.722); wound infection (TaTME: 0%; LaTME: 3.3%; p = 0.409); reoperation (TaTME: 5%; LaTME: 6.6%; p = 0.808); and readmission (TaTME: 5%; LaTME: 0%; p = 0.400), as well as the length of the hospital stay (TaTME: 13.5 days; LaTME: 11 days; p = 0.538), were similar in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of positive circumferential resection margin (TaTME: 5%; LaTME: 3.3%; p = 0.989) and positive distal resection margin (TaTME: 0%; LaTME: 3.3%; p = 0.400), the completeness of the TME (TaTME: 100%; LaTME: 100%), and the number of lymph nodes harvested (TaTME: 15; LaTME: 15.5; p = 0.882) between two groups.

Conclusion Transanal total mesorectal excision is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for middle/lower-third rectal cancer.

Quality of life in restorative versus non-restorative resections for rectal cancer: systematic review

Background

Low rectal cancers could be treated using restorative (anterior resection, AR) or non-restorative procedures with an end/permanent stoma (Hartmann’s, HE; or abdominoperineal excision, APE). Although the surgical choice is determined by tumour and patient factors, quality of life (QoL) will also influence the patient's future beyond cancer. This systematic review of the literature compared postoperative QoL between the restorative and non-restorative techniques using validated measurement tools.

Methods

The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020131492). Embase and MEDLINE, along with grey literature and trials websites, were searched comprehensively for papers published since 2012. Inclusion criteria were original research in an adult population with rectal cancer that reported QoL using a validated tool, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-CR30, QLQ-CR29, and QLQ-CR38. Studies were included if they compared AR with APE (or HE), independent of study design. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Outcomes of interest were: QoL, pain, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (stool frequency, flatulence, diarrhoea and constipation), and body image.

Results

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 6453 patients; all papers were observational and just four included preoperative evaluations. There was no identifiable difference in global QoL and pain between the two surgical techniques. Reported results regarding GI symptoms and body image documented similar findings. The ROBINS-I tool highlighted a significant risk of bias across the studies.

Conclusion

Currently, it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion on postoperative QoL, pain, GI symptoms, and body image following restorative or non-restorative surgery. The included studies were generally of poor quality, lacked preoperative evaluations, and showed considerable bias in the data.

Transanal excision with adjuvant therapy for pT1N0 rectal tumors with high-risk features offers equivalent survival to radical resection: A National Cancer Database analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines favor transabdominal radical resection (RR) over transanal local excision (TAX) followed by adjuvant therapy (TAXa) for pT1N0 rectal tumors with high-risk features. Comparison of oncologic outcomes between these approaches is limited, although the former is associated with increased postoperative morbidity. We hypothesize that such treatment strategies result in equivalent long-term survival.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Cancer Database (2010-2016) to identify patients with pT1N0 rectal adenocarcinoma with high-risk features who underwent TAX or RR for curative intent. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS), evaluated with log-rank and Cox-proportional hazards testing.

RESULTS

A total of 1159 patients (age 67.4 ± 12.9 years; 56.6% male; 83.3% White) met study criteria, of which 1009 (87.1%) underwent RR and 150 (12.9%) underwent TAXa. Patients undergoing TAXa had shorter lengths of stay (RR = 6.5 days, TAXa = 2.7 days, p < 0.001). The 5-year OS was equivalent between groups. TAX without adjuvant therapy was associated with an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.17-2.78, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study to demonstrate equivalent 5-year OS between TAXa and RR for T1N0 rectal cancer with high-risk features. These findings may guide the development of prospective, randomized trials and influence changes in practice recommendations for early-stage rectal cancer.

Concepts and prospects of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery

It is important that clinical radiologists understand and appreciate the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) options available to surgeons. Operative technologies are constantly evolving, and accurate, informed interpretation of clinical imaging is essential for optimum surgical management. Concurrent advancements in both MIS and radiological staging have certainly improved treatment decisions and outcomes. This article outlines the history, current concepts, evolving techniques, and future prospects of MIS as it pertains to colorectal cancer surgery.

Transanal (TaTME) vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of early and long-term outcomes

PURPOSE

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been proposed as an alternative to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME) in distal rectal tumors. Despite encouraging reports, mid- and long-term oncological results are limited. In this study, we aimed at comparing TaTME versus LapTME in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2019, all patients undergoing either TaTME or LapTME for rectal adenocarcinoma ≤ 12 cm from the anal verge were included. Demographic, clinical, and follow-up data were retrieved from a prospective and audited database, and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients were included, 38 underwent TaTME, and 106 LapTME. The median age was 68.0 (60.2-75.8) years, and 96 (66.7%) patients were male. Median follow-up was 30.6 (20.2-39.8) months in the TaTME group and 49.5 (22.6-68.5) months in the LapTME group. There was one (2.6%) local recurrence in the TaTME group and two (1.9%) in the LapTME group (p = 0.788). There was no difference in the 3-year disease-free survival between groups both in the primary (93% vs. 86%, p = 0.274) and the propensity score-matched analyses (93% vs. 81%, p = 0.132). Conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the TaTME group (none vs. 4 (11.4%), p = 0.041). Intra- and postoperative complications, length of stay, specimen quality, and resection margins were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, TaTME was associated with a less frequent conversion to open surgery but otherwise had similar post-operative results compared to LapTME. Local recurrence and 3-year survival rates were similar.

Safety of transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: a retrospective observational cohort study

Background

Colectomy with transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (taIPAA) is a surgical technique that can be used to treat benign colorectal disease. Ulcerative colitis is the most frequent inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and although pharmacological therapy has improved, colectomy rates reach up to 15%. The objective of this study was to determine anastomotic leakage rates and treatment after taIPAA as well as short- and long-term pouch function.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of all patients undergoing taIPAA at an academic tertiary referral center in Germany, between 01/03/2015 and 31/08/2019. Patients with indications other than ulcerative colitis or with adjuvant chemotherapy following colectomy for colorectal carcinoma were excluded for short- and long-term follow up due to diverging postoperative care yet considered for evaluation of anastomotic leakage.

Results

A total of 22 patients undergoing taIPAA during the study time-window were included in analysis. Median age at the time of surgery was 32 ± 12.5 (14–54) years. Two patients developed an anastomotic leakage at 11 days (early anastomotic leakage) and 9 months (late anastomotic leakage) after surgery, respectively. In both patients, pouches could be preserved with a multimodal approach. Twenty patients out of 22 met the inclusion criteria for short and long term follow-up. Data on short-term pouch function could be obtained in 14 patients and showed satisfactory pouch function with only four patients reporting intermittent incontinence at a median stool frequency of 9–10 times per day. In the long-term we observed an inflammation or “pouchitis” in 11 patients and a pouch failure in one patient.

Conclusion

Postoperative complication rates in patients with benign colorectal disease remain an area of concern for surgical patient safety. In this pilot study on 22 selected patients, taIPAA was associated with two patients developing anastomotic leakage. Future large-scale validation studies are required to determine the safety and feasibility of taIPAA in patients with ulcerative colitis.

A Transabdominal Robotic Purse-String Suture Technique for Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

Introduction: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a novel technique that overcomes the problem of access to the deep pelvis during radical surgery for mid-rectal and lower rectal cancer. Although TaTME has several important steps, the creation of the distal purse-string suture following TaTME plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis. However, this procedure represents a major technical challenge for the surgeon. Robot-assisted surgery may make this suturing procedure easier than laparoscopic surgery because it permits intuitive wrist movements and a three-dimensional view. The aim of the present study was to investigate the usefulness of transabdominal robotic purse-string suture during anastomosis in TaTME. Methods: Twenty-seven patients, who underwent anastomosis using a single stapling technique (SST) during the TaTME of mid-rectal or lower rectal cancer, were enrolled in the study. The patients were allocated to two groups: 11 patients underwent transabdominal robotic purse-string suturing (the Robot group) and 16 patients underwent transanal purse-string suturing (the Transanal group). The characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes of the participants were compared between the two groups. Results: The Robot group tended to have a shorter purse-string suturing time (541 ± 206 seconds versus 729 ± 310 seconds; P = .07). Regarding the shape of the "donut" after SST anastomosis, in the Transanal group, 5 of the 16 participants had incomplete donuts with muscular defects and required additional suturing, whereas in the Robot group, all the participants had complete donuts (P = .04). Conclusions: Transabdominal robotic purse-string suturing may facilitate the suturing procedure and contribute to reliable anastomosis.

A Comprehensive Overview of Colon Cancer- A Grim Reaper of the 21st Century

A few decades ago, the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) was low and is now the fourth in the list of deadly cancers producing nearly a million deaths annually. A population that is aging along with risk factors such as smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle with little or no physical activity, and non-healthy food habits of developed countries can increase the risk of colorectal cancer. The balance in gut microbiota and the metabolites produced during bacterial fermentation within the host plays a significant role in regulating intestinal diseases as well as colorectal cancer development. Recent progress in the understanding of illness resulted in multiple treatment options such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, including targeted therapy and multitherapies. The treatment plan for CRC depends on the location, stage and grade of cancer as well as genomic biomarker tests. Despite all the advancements made in the genetic and molecular aspects of the disease, the knowledge seems inadequate as the drug action as well as the wide variation in drug response did not appear strongly correlated with the individual molecular and genetic characteristics, which suggests the requirement of comprehensive molecular understanding of this complex heterogeneous disease. Furthermore, multitherapies or a broad spectrum approach, which is an amalgamation of the various promising as well as effective therapeutic strategies that can tackle heterogeneity and act on several targets of the disease, need to be validated in clinical studies. The latest treatment options have significantly increased the survival of up to three years in the case of advanced disease. The fact that colorectal cancer is developed from a polypoid precursor, as well as the symptoms of the disease that occur at an advanced stage, underlines how screening programs can help early detection and decrease mortality as well as morbidity from CRC.

Systematic review of transanal total mesorectal excision literature according to the ideal framework: The evolution never ends

BACKGROUND

Designing studies to assess critically novel procedures can be challenging; thus, the process to achieve robust evidence is frequently problematic. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate if literature on transanal total mesorectal excision is evolving according to the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results framework.

METHODS

Literature on transanal total mesorectal excision was searched according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement, and these variables were recorded: bibliometric data, design, corresponding author's nationality, number of patients enrolled, and Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results stages (stage 0, stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, and stage 4).

RESULTS

Out of 447 articles retrieved, 247 were selected (76.5% single center and 23.5% multicenter collaborations), including 35 reviews, 15 meta-analyses, 24 other publications, and 173 articles classified according to Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results stages (19 stage 0, 27 stage 1, 111 stage 2, 7 stage 3, and 9 stage 4). Overall, impact factor produced was 634.10. Reviewing corresponding authors' nationalities, 32 countries were identified, and the most reported were the United States, China, and the United Kingdom; nearly all were from the Northern Hemisphere. Publication of stage 3 and 4 articles started in 2014, whereas stage 0 and 1 articles were stably published over time. The number of patients increased in correspondence with the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results stages (case series with >51 patients, respectively, 100.0% stage 3, 77.8% stage 4, and 33.3% stage 2, P = .005).

CONCLUSION

The number of stage 3 and 4 articles is still low; however, the technical innovation of transanal total mesorectal excision is a non-stopping process with preclinical studies stably published over time.

Transperineal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer on the residual rectum after multiple abdominal surgeries in a patient with Crohn's disease: a case report

BACKGROUND

The improved prognosis of Crohn's disease may increase the opportunities of surgical treatment for patients with Crohn's disease and the risk of development of colorectal cancer. We herein describe a patient with Crohn's disease and a history of multiple surgeries who developed rectal stump carcinoma that was treated laparoscopically and transperineally.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 51-year-old man had been diagnosed with Crohn's disease 35 years earlier and had undergone several operations for treatment of Crohn's colitis. Colonoscopic examination was performed and revealed rectal cancer at the residual rectum. The patient was then referred to our department. The tumor was diagnosed as clinical T2N0M0, Stage I. We treated the tumor by combination of laparoscopic surgery and concomitant transperineal resection of the rectum. While the intra-abdominal adhesion was dissected laparoscopically, rectal dissection in the correct plane progressed by the transperineal approach. The rectal cancer was resected without involvement of the resection margin. The duration of the operation was 3 h 48 min, the blood loss volume was 50 mL, and no intraoperative complications occurred. The pathological diagnosis of the tumor was type 5 well- and moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, pT2N0, Stage I. No recurrence was evident 3 months after the operation, and no adjuvant chemotherapy was performed.

CONCLUSION

The transperineal approach might be useful in patients with Crohn's disease who develop rectal cancer after multiple abdominal surgeries.

Current Challenges for Education and Training in Transanal Surgery

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is a technique that was introduced in the 1980s for improved exposure to upper rectal polyps. This technique, though initially difficult to master due to new skill acquisition for surgeons, has spared many patients proctectomy. There are many benign indications for transanal endoscopic surgery which has led to in vivo operating room training with fewer undesirable effects to the patient. With the explosion of laparoscopic technology this transanal technique is no longer limited to intraluminal pathology, but is now being used to remove the entire rectum. In transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME), benign indications are less common, translating to potentially more severe oncologic patient consequences during the early phase of adoption. For this reason, strict training criteria consensus guidelines have been developed by the experts in taTME. The current consensus statements agree that training surgeons should have performed a minimum of 10 laparoscopic TME procedures and should have some experience with transanal surgery. Surgeons need to attend a formal training course and should start clinically on benign or early malignant pathology without threated circumferential resection margins. Surgeons also need to have their first cases proctored until deemed proficient by the proctor and monitor their morbidity, oncologic, and functional outcomes prospectively.

Robotic or transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) approach for rectal cancer, how about both? Feasibility and outcomes from a single institution

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is technically challenging. Robotic and transanal TME (TaTME) are both novel approaches developed to provide better visualization and dissection. We aim to combine both approaches in a hybrid procedure and evaluate the feasibility as well as patient and oncological outcomes in this study. A review of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent a hybrid abdominal robotic approach with TaTME for rectal cancer between January 2016 and October 2018 was undertaken. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics and surgical outcomes were recorded and analyzed. A total of 69 patients (43 males, 26 females) received this hybrid approach. Their median age was 58 years (range 35-87) with a mean BMI of 24.3 kg/m² (range 16.4-44.2). Median distance from anal verge was 5 cm (range 2-9). The patients had a median hospital length of stay of 7 days (range 5-28). Complication rate was 17.4% (12 patients) with 3 patients (4.3%) requiring a reoperation. TME quality was optimal with all of them either complete (81.2%) or almost complete (18.8%). 65 patients (94.2%) had an R0 resection with 4 patients (5.8%) with involved circumferential resection margins (≤ 1 mm). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 20 (range 6-37). After a median follow-up of 27.7 months (range 7-42), local recurrence was identified in 2 patients (4%). Three patients (5.2%) had distant recurrence at the 3-year mark. Hybrid robotic abdominal dissection with transanal TME for rectal cancer appears to be feasible with comparable surgical outcomes to other traditional approaches.

Short-term outcomes of medium-low rectal cancer treated by taTME and experience of 22 cases

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a novel radical resection technique that may address the unsatisfactory functional and oncological outcomes of medium-low rectal cancers. Although its oncological safety remains unclear, taTME has demonstrable value in surgery, complications, and oncological outcomes. Here, we explore the short-term outcomes of rectal cancer after taTME and discuss the surgical experience. Twenty-two patients with medium-low rectal cancer who underwent taTME were retrospectively evaluated. Comprehensive demographic, oncological, and clinical data were analyzed and the perioperative state and postoperative follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up period of 24.4 (4-36) months, local recurrence occurred in one patient at 6 months postsurgery. Fecal incontinence was the most common postoperative complication, and 3-6 months of pelvic-floor-rehabilitation training greatly improved  anal function CONCLUSIONS: taTME achieved satisfactory short-term outcomes in oncological complications and postoperative functions. Accurate intraoperative anatomical location, identification of the rectovesical fascia, and neuroprotection are critical. However, this procedure has a steep learning curve, and large samples and multicenter studies are required to substantiate its effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

We retrospectively analyzed the oncological and functional prognosis of 22 patients with colorectal cancer undergoing taTME surgery and preliminarily concluded taTME can be regarded as a safe and feasible treatment.

A prospective study of health related quality of life, bowel and sexual function after TaTME and conventional laparoscopic TME for mid and low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to evaluate short -term (3 months) and medium-term (12 months) postoperative effects on health related quality of life (HRQoL), bowel and sexual function after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME)  in comparison with conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted on consecutive patients who had conventional laparoscopic TME and TaTME at our institution from November 2014 to December 2018.We evaluated HRQoL and bowel function using validated scales including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life of colorectal cancer specific module (EORTC-QLQ-CR29), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score and Wexner score. Patients were matched one-to-one through propensity score matching. Outcomes of the questionnaires at 3 and 12 months were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled in the study. There were 30 in the conventional laparoscopic group (13 males; median age 69.3 years [range 35-80 years]) and 30 in the TaTME group (14 males; median age 75.6 years [range 42-83 years]). Three months after ileostmy closure, patients in the TaTME group had significantly more buttock pain (p = 0.030), bloating (p = 0.023), stool frequency (p = 0.013), flatulence (p < 0.001) and fecal incontinence (p = 0.044), although none of these differences persisted at 12 months. Patients in the TaTME group had a higher median overall LARS score at 3 months (p = 0.032) but there was no difference at 12 months. At 12 months after TaTME female patients had better women's sexual interest (p = 0.039) and dyspareunia scores (p < 0.001), while male patients had better erectile function (p = 0.038). Other scales did not reveal a significant difference at either 3 of 12 months between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with patients with mid and low rectal cancer treated with conventional laparoscopic TME, those treated with TaTME have worse HRQoL and bowel function for a short period after primary resection, but seem to have better sexual function in the long term.

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

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

Comparison of transanal total mesorectal excision and robotic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

To improve the quality of surgery for rectal cancer, both transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be performed. However, few studies have compared outcomes of taTME and R-TME, especially for patients with low rectal cancer after undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT). Thus, the objective of this study was to compare outcomes of taTME and R-TME for patients with low rectal cancer after undergoing nCRT.

METHODS

A total of 306 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent taTME or R-TME after nCRT between 2008 and 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were classified into two groups: 1) taTME surgery group (n = 94); and 2) R-TME surgery group (n = 212).

RESULTS

Clinicopathologic variables were comparable between the two groups. There was no significant difference in circumference margin involvement (1.1% in taTME vs. 2.8% in R-TME, p = 0.680) or distal resection margin (2.3 cm in taTME vs. 2.4 cm in R-TME, p = 0.629). Total operation time (239 min in taTME vs. 243 min in R-TME, p = 0.675) and major complications (including anastomosis site leakage, surgical site infection, and voiding difficulty) showed no significant difference between the two groups either.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal and robotic TMEs have similar short-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer after undergoing nCRT. High quality TME can be equally achieved with both transanal and robotic approaches.