Controversies and consensus in transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME): Is it a valid choice for rectal cancer?

Quality of life and functional outcomes after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer. an updated meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Concerns exist regarding the potential for transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) to yield poorer functional outcomes compared to laparoscopic TME (LaTME). The aim of this study is to assess the functional outcomes following taTME and LaTME, focusing on bowel, anorectal, and urogenital disorders and their impact on the patient's QoL.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. The variables considered are: Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Jorge-Wexner scales; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C29 and QLQ-C30 scales.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 1020 patients (497-taTME group/ 523-LaTME group) were included. There was no significant difference between the treatments in terms of anorectal function: LARS (MD: 2.81, 95% CI: - 2.45-8.08, p = 0.3; I2 = 97%); Jorge-Wexner scale (MD: -1.3, 95% CI: -3.22-0.62, p = 0.19). EORTC QLQ C30/29 scores were similar between the groups. No significant differences were reported in terms of urogenital function: IPSS (MD: 0.0, 95% CI: - 1.49-1.49, p = 0.99; I2 = 72%).

CONCLUSIONS

This review supports previous findings indicating that functional outcomes and QoL are similar for rectal cancer patients who underwent taTME or LaTME. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and understand the long-term impact of the functional sequelae of these surgical approaches.

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.

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.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer

Background

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

Methods

We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on MiTME (robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision) and TaTME (transanal total mesorectal excision). We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374141).

Results

There are 11010 patients including 39 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent MiTME had no statistical difference in operation time (SMD -0.14; CI -0.31 to 0.33; I²⁼84.7%, P=0.116), estimated blood loss (SMD 0.05; CI -0.05 to 0.14; I²⁼48%, P=0.338), postoperative hospital stay (RR 0.08; CI -0.07 to 0.22; I²⁼0%, P=0.308), over complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.88 to 1.08; I²⁼25.4%, P=0.644), intraoperative complications (RR 0.94; CI 0.69 to 1.29; I²⁼31.1%, P=0.712), postoperative complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.87 to 1.11; I²⁼16.1%, P=0.789), anastomotic stenosis (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I²⁼7.4%, P=0.564), wound infection (RR 1.08; CI 0.65 to 1.81; I²⁼1.9%, P=0.755), circumferential resection margin (RR 1.10; CI 0.91 to 1.34; I²⁼0%, P=0.322), distal resection margin (RR 1.49; CI 0.73 to 3.05; I²⁼0%, P=0.272), major low anterior resection syndrome (RR 0.93; CI 0.79 to 1.10; I²⁼0%, P=0.386), lymph node yield (SMD 0.06; CI -0.04 to 0.17; I²⁼39.6%, P=0.249), 2-year DFS rate (RR 0.99; CI 0.88 to 1.11; I²⁼0%, P = 0.816), 2-year OS rate (RR 1.00; CI 0.90 to 1.11; I²⁼0%, P = 0.969), distant metastasis rate (RR 0.47; CI 0.17 to 1.29; I²⁼0%, P = 0.143), and local recurrence rate (RR 1.49; CI 0.75 to 2.97; I²⁼0%, P = 0.250). However, patients who underwent MiTME had fewer anastomotic leak rates (SMD -0.38; CI -0.59 to -0.17; I²⁼19.0%, P<0.0001).

Conclusion

This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of MiTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid to low-rectal cancer through meta-analysis. There is no difference between the two except for patients with MiTME who have a lower anastomotic leakage rate, which provides some evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022374141.

Correlation of Presacral Tumour Recurrence with Tumour Metastasis and Long-Term Tumour Recurrence Risk in Patients with Rectal Cancer

Objective

To explore the risk factors that affect long-term presacral tumour recurrence in patients with rectal cancer (RC) after radical rectal cancer resection.

Methods

In our study, a total of 50 patients with presacral tumour recurrence after radical resection of RC in our hospital between May 2017 and May 2018 were enrolled in the observation group, and the other 50 patients without presacral tumour recurrence after the resection over the same span were enrolled in the control group. The two groups were compared in distant metastatic rate and long-term recurrence, and corresponding K-M curves were drawn. Additionally, the quality of life of the two groups was also compared. Patients in both groups were assigned to a long-term recurrence group or a non-long-term recurrence group based on their long-term recurrence, and a multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out for analysis of risk factors of long-term recurrence.

Results

The two groups were not greatly different in clinical data (P > 0.05). The observation group was higher than the control group in terms of distant metastasis and long-term recurrence (P < 0.05). In addition, the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores of the observation group were all lower than those of the control group in the eight dimensions (P < 0.05). Moreover, tumour diameter (OR: 0.315, 95% CI: 0.118–0.835), differentiation (OR: 2.652, 95% CI: 1.086–6.852), and presacral recurrence (OR: 2.370, 95% CI: 1.263–4.447) were all independent risk factors for long-term recurrence of patients undergoing radical resection of RC.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing radical resection of RC face greatly higher risks of presacral tumour distant metastasis and long-term tumour recurrence, and tumour diameter ≥ 5 cm, low-differentiation degree, and presacral recurrence are independent risk factors for long-term recurrence of patients undergoing radical resection of RC. In the future, when performing radical resection of rectal cancer, it is necessary to pay attention to the changes in the above indicators in patients so as to prevent tumour recurrence.

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.