Sphincter-saving surgeries for rectal cancer: A single center study from Kashmir

The role of transanal total mesorectal excision

At inception, transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) was hypothesized to be a solution for several problems encountered in pelvic surgery, particularly for distal rectal cancer. The transanal part of the procedure is less hampered by patient related factors such as visceral obesity and a narrow bony pelvis and can thus overcome access and visualization problems encountered with a pure abdominal approach. Clearly, as for any new technique, a learning curve needs to be negotiated, ideally without unacceptable harm to patients. Once in experienced hands, TaTME might overcome challenges found in anatomically challenging rectal cancer patients as well as for other indications. The role of TaTME is not to replace, but rather complement its abdominal counterpart.

Functional complaints and quality of life after transanal total mesorectal excision: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) gives excellent oncological results in rectal cancer treatment, but patients may experience functional problems. A novel approach to performing TME is by single-port transanal minimally invasive surgery. This systematic review evaluated the functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal and laparoscopic TME.

METHODS

A comprehensive search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and the trial registers was conducted in May 2019. PRISMA guidelines were used. Data for meta-analysis were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 11 660 studies were identified, from which 14 studies and six conference abstracts involving 846 patients (599 transanal TME, 247 laparoscopic TME) were included. A substantial number of patients experienced functional problems consistent with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Meta-analysis found no significant difference in major LARS between the two approaches (risk ratio 1·13, 95 per cent c.i. 0·94 to 1·35; P = 0·18). However, major heterogeneity was present in the studies together with poor reporting of functional baseline assessment.

CONCLUSION

No differences in function were observed between transanal and laparoscopic TME.

Factors affecting sphincter-preserving resection treatment for patients with low rectal cancer

The aim of the present study was to identify the factors associated with the use of sphincter-preserving resection (SPR) surgery for the treatment of low rectal cancer. A total of 330 patients with histopathologically confirmed low rectal cancer were divided into two groups, namely the abdominoperineal resection (APR) and sphincter-preserving (SP) groups. For SPR factor analysis, the χ² test was performed as the univariate analysis, while a logistic regression test was conducted as the multivariate analysis. Of the 330 patients, 192 cases (58.18%) received SPR surgery and 138 cases (41.82%) underwent an APR. Univariate analysis results revealed that the sphincter-preserving factor was significantly associated with age, gender, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), total infiltrated circumference, distance of the tumor from the anal verge (DTAV), depth of invasion and tumor grade (P<0.05). However, there were no statistically significant associations with family medical history, diabetes history, venous tumor embolism, growth type, tumor length, lymphatic metastasis and level of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (P>0.05). Multivariate analysis indicated that the sphincter-preserving factor was strongly associated with DTAV and the depth of invasion, with significant statistical difference (P<0.05). Therefore, selecting SPR surgery for patients with low rectal cancer is dependent on age, gender, ethnicity, BMI, the total infiltrated circumference, DTAV, depth of invasion and tumor grade. In addition, DTAV and the depth of invasion are independent risk factors for the selection of SPR surgery.