Transanal versus abdominal low rectal dissection for rectal cancer: long-term results of the Bordeaux' randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1486-1494. [PMID: 29067578 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5836-y]

Functional Outcomes After Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) for Rectal Cancer: Results From the Phase II North American Multicenter Prospective Observational Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate fecal incontinence and defecatory, urinary, and sexual functional outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME).

BACKGROUND

Proctectomy for rectal cancer may result in alterations in defecatory, urinary, and sexual function that persist beyond 12 months. The recent multicenter phase II taTME trial demonstrated the safety of taTME in patients with stage I to III tumors.

METHODS

Prospectively registered self-reported questionnaires were collected from 100 taTME patients. Fecal continence [Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQL), Wexner], defecatory function [Colorectal Functional Outcome (COREFO)], urinary function (International Prostate Symptom Score), and sexual function (Female Sexual Function Index-female, International Index of Erectile Function-male) were assessed preoperatively (PQ), 3 to 4 months postileostomy closure (FQ1), and 12 to 18 months post-taTME [postoperative questionnaire 2 (FQ2)].

RESULTS

Among 83 patients who responded at all 3 time points, FIQL, Wexner, and COREFO significantly worsened postileostomy closure. Between FQ1 and FQ2, FIQL lifestyle and coping, Wexner, and COREFO incontinence, social impact, frequency, and need for medication significantly improved, while FIQL depression and embarrassment did not change. International Prostate Symptom Score did not change relative to preoperative scores. For females, Female Sexual Function Index declined for desire, orgasm, and satisfaction between PQ and FQ1, and did not improve between FQ1 and FQ2. In males, International Index of Erectile Function declined with no change between FQ1 and FQ2.

CONCLUSIONS

Although taTME resulted in initial decline in defecatory function and fecal continence, most functional domains improved by 12 months after ileostomy closure, without returning to preoperative status. Urinary function was preserved while sexual function declined without improvement by 18 months post-taTME. Our results address patient expectations and inform shared decision-making regarding taTME.

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.

Comparing perioperative and oncological outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective studies

INTRODUCTION

Meta-analysis of the results of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and laparoscopic TME (laTME) regarding perioperative and oncological outcomes have been conducted. Due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies in the included literature, the conclusions are unreliable. This study included RCTs and prospective studies for analysis to obtain more reliable conclusions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted up to June 2023. To assess the quality, the Cochrane quality assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were employed. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were then analyzed. The I2 statistic was used to evaluate statistical heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies, comprising 5056 patients, were included in the analysis, of which 6 were RCTs and 16 were prospective studies. The conversion rate in the taTME group was significantly lower than that in the laTME group (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.22, P < 0.01), and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was longer (MD 0.99 mm, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32 mm, P < 0.01), with a lower rate of positive CRM involvement (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97, P = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, anastomotic leakage, uroschesis, obstruction, secondary operation, hospital stay, urethral injury, readmission, mortality rate within 30 days, mesorectal resection quality, number of harvested lymph nodes, distal resection margin (DRM), positive DRM, local recurrence, and distance recurrence (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

According to the findings of this meta-analysis, which is based on RCTs and prospective studies, taTME appears to have an advantage over laTME in terms of conversion rate and CRM involvement.

Long-term outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in Denmark: A prospective multicenter study from the late implementation phase

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term surgical and oncological outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer during an implementation phase on a national level.

METHOD

This is a retrospective review of prospectively recorded data. Registration was initiated by the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group in order to assess the quality of care during the implementation of TaTME in Denmark. Data from four centers were pooled for simultaneous analysis. Short-term data was available from a prior study, and long-term data regarding recurrences, chemotherapy, and mortality was collected.

RESULTS

From August 2016 to April 2019, 115 TaTME procedures were registered. Patients were predominantly male (n = 85, 74%) with mid-rectal (n = 88, 77%) tumors. The overall local recurrence rate was 7.8% (n = 9) of which six patients also had systemic recurrence. Mean long-term follow-up was 59.4 months, and median time to local recurrence was 24.9 months. Local recurrences occurred predominantly among initial implementation cases. The overall mortality rate was 13% (n = 15). Of the 17 patients with recurrence, 35% (n = 6) died and developed either solely distant recurrence (n = 2, 12%) or in combination with local recurrence (n = 4, 24%).

CONCLUSION

We found acceptable long-term oncological results after TaTME during the implementation phase in Denmark. There was an accumulation of local recurrences in the early phase of the study which emphasizes the importance of thorough training and proctoring when starting the approach.

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.

Meta-analysis of transanal vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of low rectal cancer: Importance of appropriate patient selection

BACKGROUND

Achieving a clear resection margins for low rectal cancer is technically challenging. Transanal approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) was introduced in order to address the challenges associated with the laparoscopic approach in treating low rectal cancers. However, previous meta-analyses have included mixed population with mid and low rectal tumours when comparing both approaches which has made the interpretation of the real differences between two approaches in treating low rectal cancer difficult.

AIM

To investigate the outcomes of transanal TME (TaTME) and laparoscopic TME (LaTME) in patients with low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review of comparative studies was performed in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, R0 resection, completeness of mesorectal excision, circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin (DRM), harvested lymph nodes, and operation time were the investigated outcome measures.

RESULTS

We included twelve comparative studies enrolling 969 patients comparing TaTME (n = 969) and LaTME (n = 476) in patients with low rectal tumours. TaTME was associated with significantly lower risk of postoperative complications (OR: 0.74, P = 0.04), anastomotic leak (OR: 0.59, P = 0.02), and conversion to an open procedure (OR: 0.29, P = 0.002) in comparison with LaTME. Moreover, the rate of R0 resection was significantly higher in the TaTME group (OR: 1.96, P = 0.03). Nevertheless, TaTME and LaTME were comparable in terms of rate of intraoperative complications (OR: 1.87; P = 0.23), completeness of mesoractal excision (OR: 1.57, P = 0.15), harvested lymph nodes (MD: -0.05, P = 0.96), DRM (MD: -0.94; P = 0.17), CRM (MD: 1.08, P = 0.17), positive CRM (OR: 0.64, P = 0.11) and procedure time (MD: -6.99 min, P = 0.45).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicated that for low rectal tumours, TaTME is associated with better clinical and short term oncological outcomes compared to LaTME. More randomised controlled trials are required to confirm these findings and to evaluate long term oncological and functional outcomes.

Transanal down-to-up dissection of the distal rectum as a viable approach to achieve total mesorectal excision in laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer near the anus: a study of short- and long-term outcomes of 123 consecutive patients from a single Japanese institution

Background

In rectal cancer (RC) surgery, the complexity of total mesorectal excision (TME) in laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgery (lap-SPS) for RC near the anus has been a critical issue. Recently, technical assistance via the anus for complete TME has been receiving attention. This study aimed at clarifying the transanal down-to-up dissection viability for achieving TME in lap-SPS for RC near the anus.

Methods

We evaluated surgical and oncological outcomes of a total of 123 consecutive patients undergoing either a transanal rectal dissection (TARD) under direct vision mobilizing the most difficult portion of TME via the anus or the transanal TME by using an endoscopic system (TaTME) for achieving TME in lap-SPS for RC near the anus between January 2006 and February 2021.

Results

A total of 123 consecutive patients (83 men) with a median age of 66 years (range 33–86 years) were included. TARD and TaTME were performed for 50 (40.7%) and for 73 (59.3%) patients, respectively. Preoperative treatment was performed for 40 (32.5%) patients, resulting in a complete pathological response in 5 (12.5%) patients. Intersphincteric resection was performed significantly more in the TARD group (p<0.001). Although the TaTME group needed a longer operative time at the transanal portion (p<0.001), the median blood loss was lower (p<0.001). Postoperative complications with the Clavien–Dindo classification grade ≧2 developed in 52 (42.3%) patients. Urinary dysfunction and stoma-related complications were found most frequently. More patients needing medication for urinary dysfunction were found in the TARD group, but a significant difference was not observed (10.0% vs. 6.8%, p=0.526). The quality of TME was good for almost all patients. Recurrence developed in 18 (14.6%) patients. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) rates in 123 patients were 95.8% and 88.8%, respectively. The 5-year OS and RFS between the two groups were comparable.

Conclusions

Our data suggested that a transanal down-to-up dissection of the distal rectum might be a viable approach in lap-SPS for RC near the anus. Further studies are needed to examine the differences between TARD and TaTME.

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (India Chapter) and Indian rectal cancer expert group's practical consensus statements for surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

There are standard treatment guidelines for the surgical management of rectal cancer, that are advocated by recognized physician societies. But, owing to disparities in access and affordability of various treatment options, there remains an unmet need for personalizing these international guidelines to Indian settings.

METHODS

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) set up the Indian rectal cancer expert group, with a pre-defined selection criterion and comprised of the leading surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons managing rectal cancer in India. Following the constitution of the expert Group, members identified three areas of focus and 12 clinical questions. A thorough review of the literature was performed, and the evidence was graded as per the levels of evidence by Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The consensus was built using the modified Delphi methodology of consensus development. A consensus statement was accepted only if ≥75% of the experts were in agreement.

RESULTS

Using the results of the review of the literature and experts' opinions; the expert group members drafted and agreed on the final consensus statements, and these were classified as "strong or weak", based on the GRADE framework.

CONCLUSION

The expert group adapted international guidelines for the surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer to Indian settings. It will be vital to disseminate these to the wider surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons' community in India.

Transanal versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in Male Patients with Low Tumor Location after Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

Background. Since Sylla and Lacy successfully reported the transanal total mesorectal excision in 2010, taTME was considered to have the potential to overcome some problematic laparoscopic cases in male, low advanced rectal cancer. However, the evidence is still lacking. This study compared the short and long outcomes of taTME with laTME in these “challenging” patients to explore the advantages of taTME among the patients. Method. After propensity score matching analysis, 106 patients were included in each group from 325 patients who met the including standard. Statistical analysis was used to compare the differences of perioperative outcomes, histopathological results, and survival results between taTME and laTME groups. Results. The mean time of pelvic operation in the taTME group was significantly shorter than in the laTME group ( $62.2\pm 14.2$ mins vs $81.1\pm 18.9$ mins, $P=0.003$ ). The complication incidence rate and the rate of protective loop ileostomy in the taTME group were significantly lower than those in the laTME group (19.8% vs 38.7%, $P=0.003$ and 70.8% vs 92.5%, $P<0.001$ ). In long-term result, there was no significant difference between the two groups for 3-year OS (87.3% vs 85.4%, $P=0.86$ ) or 3-year DFS (74.9% vs 70.1%, $P=0.92$ ). The 2-year cumulative local recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (1.1% vs 5.8%, $P=0.22$ ). Conclusion. This study demonstrated that taTME might reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, especially of anastomotic leakage in these “challenging” patients. taTME may be considered to have clear advantages for “challenging” patients.

Transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a comparative study of long-term oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is the most recent approach developed to improve pelvic dissection in surgery for mid and low rectal tumors. There are still inconsistencies regarding the technique's oncological results. The aim of this study was to analyze clinical and oncological outcomes of the learning curve of TaTME in comparison to laparoscopic TME (lapTME).

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients who had TaTME and lapTME in two Portuguese colorectal units between March 2016 and December 2018 were eligible. Primary endpoints were 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence. Secondary endpoints were clinical and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients underwent TaTME (29 men) and 39 lapTME (27 men) with a median age of 69 and 66 (p = 0.093), respectively. No differences were observed concerning baseline characteristics, emphasizing their comparability. In the TaTME group, there were more hand-sewn anastomosis (0 lapTME versus 7 TaTME, p = 0.018) with significantly less distance to the dentate line (40 mm lapTME versus 20 mm TaTME, p = 0.005) and significantly more loop ileostomies performed (28 lapTME versus 41 TaTME, p = 0.001). There were no differences in post-operative mortality, morbidity, readmissions, and stoma closure. Groups were similar in relation to specimen quality, margins, and resectability; however, TaTME had a significantly higher node yield (14 lapTME versus 20 TaTME, p = 0.002). Finally, no disparities were noted in oncological outcomes, namely local and distant recurrence, 5-year overall survival, and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Even with the disadvantage of the learning curve of a new technique, TaTME appears to be comparable to lapTME, with similar long-term oncological outcomes. It has, however, a demanding learning curve, significant risk for morbidity and should be used only for selected patients.

Local Recurrence After Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine local recurrence (LR) rate and pattern after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

TaTME for mid- and low rectal cancer has known a rapid and worldwide adoption. Recently, concerns have been raised on the oncological safety in light of reported high LR rates with a multifocal pattern.

METHODS

This was a multicenter observational cohort study in 6 tertiary referral centers. All consecutive TaTME cases for primary rectal adenocarcinoma from the first TaTME case in every center until December 2018 were included for analysis. Patients with benign tumors, malignancies other than adenocarcinoma and recurrent rectal cancer, as well as exenterative procedures, were excluded. The primary endpoint was 2-year LR rate. Secondary endpoints included patterns and treatment of LR and histopathological characteristics of the primary surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 767 patients were identified and eligible for analysis. Resection margins were involved in 8% and optimal pathological outcome (clear margins, (nearly) complete specimen, no perforation) was achieved in 86% of patients. After a median follow-up of 25.5 months, 24 patients developed LR, with an actuarial cumulative 2-year LR rate of 3% (95% CI 2-5). In none of the patients, a multifocal pattern of LR was observed. Thirteen patients had isolated LR (without systemic disease) and 10/13 could be managed by salvage surgery of whom 8 were disease-free at the end of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study shows good loco regional control after TaTME in selected cases from tertiary referral centers and does not indicate an inherent oncological risk of the surgical technique.

Statistical, Clinical, Methodological Evaluation of Local Recurrence Following Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A recent Norwegian moratorium challenged the status quo of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer by reporting increased early multifocal local recurrences.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the local recurrence rates following transanal total mesorectal excision as well as to assess statistical, clinical, and methodological bias in reports published to date.

DATA SOURCES

The PubMed and MEDLINE (via Ovid) databases were systematically searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Descriptive or comparative studies reporting rates of local recurrence at a median follow-up of 6 months (or more) after transanal total mesorectal excision were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent transanal total mesorectal excision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Local recurrence was any recurrence located in the pelvic surgery site. The untransformed proportion method of 1-arm meta-analysis was utilized. Untransformed percent proportion with 95% confidence interval was reported. Ad hoc meta-regression with the Omnibus test was utilized to assess risk factors for local recurrence. Among-study heterogeneity was evaluated: statistically by I2 and τ2, clinically by summary tables, and methodologically by a 33-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies totaling 2906 patients were included. The pooled rate of local recurrence was 3.4% (2.7%-4.0%) at an average of 20.1 months with low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Meta-regression yielded no correlation between complete total mesorectal excision quality (p = 0.855), circumferential resection margin (p = 0.268), distal margin (p = 0.886), and local recurrence rates. Clinical heterogeneity was substantial. Methodological heterogeneity was linked to the excitement of novelty, loss aversion, reactivity to criticism, indication for transanal total mesorectal excision, nonprobability sampling, circular reasoning, misclassification, inadequate follow-up, reporting bias, conflict of interest, and self-licensing.

LIMITATIONS

The studies included had an observational design and limited sample and follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review found a pooled rate of local recurrence of 3.4% at 20 months. However, given the substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across the studies, the evidence for or against transanal total mesorectal excision is inconclusive at this time.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of transanal TME compared with transabdominal TME for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to have favorable surgical and pathological outcomes. However, the evidence on survival outcomes remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to compare long-term oncologic outcomes of TaTME with transabdominal TME for rectal cancer.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Data were pooled, and overall effect size was calculated using random-effects models. Outcome measures were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local and distant recurrence.

Results

We included 11 nonrandomized studies that examined 2,143 patients for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the two groups in OS, DFS, and local and distant recurrence with a RR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.39–1.09, I² = 0%), 0.79 (95% CI 0.57–1.10, I² = 0%), 1.14 (95% CI 0.44–2.91, I² = 66%), and 0.75 (95% CI 0.40–1.41, I² = 0%), respectively.

Conclusion

In terms of long-term oncologic outcomes, TaTME may be an alternative to transabdominal TME in patients with rectal cancer. Well-designed randomized trials are warranted to further verify these results.

Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare long-term oncological, functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL) after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were conducted on PubMed and Cochrane database. Non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) which compared TaTME with LaTME were included.

RESULTS

Ten non-randomized studies were identified, including a total of 638 patients (323 TaTME and 315 LaTME). Age, sex, body mass index, neoadjuvant treatment and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) staging of patients in the two groups were comparable in all included studies. The follow-up period was significantly shorter in the TaTME group than in the LaTME group. No significant differences in local (p = 0.71) and distant (p = 0.23) recurrence rate, 2-year disease-free (p = 0.86) and overall (p = 0.25) survival was found. Also, no significant differences in function outcomes and QoL, including the Wexner score (p = 0.48) or the International Prostate Syndrome Score (IPSS) (p = 0.64) were found. However, the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score was significantly higher in the TaTME group (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TaTME and LaTME have similar long-term oncological and functional outcomes as well as QoL. The only exception is higher LARS scores after TaTME. The current data are based mainly on observational studies and further randomized controlled trials are required.

Prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin in the era of evolving surgical and multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Circumferential resection margin is considered an important prognostic parameter after rectal cancer surgery, but its impact might have changed because of improved surgical quality and tailored multimodality treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin involvement based on the most recent literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies published between January 2006 and May 2019. Studies were included if 3- or 5-year oncological outcomes were reported depending on circumferential resection margin status. Outcome parameters were local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and distant metastasis rate. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Jadad score were used for quality assessment of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model and reported as a pooled odds ratio or hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Seventy-five studies were included, comprising a total of 85,048 rectal cancer patients. Significant associations between circumferential resection margin involvement and all long-term outcome parameters were uniformly found, with varying odds ratios and hazard ratios depending on circumferential resection margin definition (<1 mm, ≤1 mm, otherwise), neoadjuvant treatment, study period, and geographical origin of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Circumferential resection margin involvement has remained an independent, poor prognostic factor for local recurrence and survival in most recent literature, indicating that circumferential resection margin status can still be used as a short-term surrogate endpoint.

Transanal total mesorectal excision: 3-year oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer treatment has evolved with the implementation of new surgical techniques. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is the most recent approach developed to facilitate pelvic dissection of mid- and distal rectal tumours. The purpose of this study was to analyse the short- and mid-term oncological outcomes of TaTME.

METHODS

A study was conducted on patients treated with TaTME for rectal cancer at two colorectal units in Portugal between March 2016 and December 2018. Clinical, pathological and oncological data were retrospectively analysed. Primary endpoints were 3-year overall survival, disease-free survival and local recurrence. Secondary endpoints were clinical and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (31 males, [62%], median age 66 years [range 40-85 years]) underwent TaTME, 49 (98%) for malignant and 1 (2%) for benign disease. There were no cases of conversion, 49 (98%) patients had complete or near-complete mesorectum, all the resections were R0 with adequate distal and circumferential margins. With a median follow-up of 36 months, there were 2 cases (4%) of local recurrence and 3-year estimated overall survival and disease-free survival were 90% and 79%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TaTME can provide safe mid-term oncological outcomes, similar to what has been published for classic and laparoscopic TME. Our results also show how demanding this novel approach can be and the consequent need for audited data and standardized implementation.

Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgical resection for rectal cancer usually requires a proctectomy with respective lymphadenectomy (total mesorectal excision). This has traditionally been performed transabdominally through an open incision. Over the last thirty years, minimally invasive surgery platforms have rapidly evolved with the goal to accomplish the same quality rectal resection through a less invasive approach. There are currently three resective modalities that complement the traditional open operation: (1) Laparoscopic surgery; (2) Robotic surgery; and (3) Transanal total mesorectal excision. In addition, there are several platforms to carry out transluminal local excisions (without lymphadenectomy). Evidence on the various modalities is of mixed to moderate quality. It is unreasonable to expect a randomized comparison of all options in a single trial. This review aims at reviewing in detail the various techniques in regard to intra-/perioperative benchmarks, recovery and complications, oncological and functional outcomes.

Surgical approach for rectal cancer: A network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME approaches

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) of rectal cancer remains controversial.

AIM

To compare short- and long-term outcomes after open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME) and transanal TME (TaTME).

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was performed up to January 1, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least 2 TME strategies. A Bayesian arm-based random effect network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, specifically, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC).

RESULTS

30 RCTs (and six updates) of 5586 patients with rectal cancer were included. No significant differences were identified in recurrence rates or survival rates. Operating time was shorter with OpTME (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] 0.96) compared to LapTME, RoTME and TaTME. Although OpTME was associated with the most blood loss (SUCRA 0.90) and had a slower recovery with increased length of stay (SUCRA 0.90) compared to the minimally invasive techniques, there was no difference in postoperative morbidity. OpTME was associated with a more complete TME specimen compared to LapTME (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 1.01, 1.11), and TaTME had less involved CRMs (RR 0.173, 95% CrI 0.02, 0.76) versus LapTME. There were no differences between the modalities in terms of deep TME defects, DRM distance, or lymph node yield.

CONCLUSIONS

While OpTME was the most effective TME modality for short term histopathological resection quality, there was no difference in long-term oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive approaches enhance postoperative recovery, at the cost of longer operating times. Technique selection should be based on individual tumour characteristics and patient expectations, as well as surgeon and institutional expertise.

Transanal total mesorectal excision: the Slagelse experience 2013-2019

OBJECTIVE

To describe outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) 5 years from implementation at a large-volume colorectal unit, including local recurrence, distant metastasis, and survival.

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a relatively new procedure for mid- and low-rectal cancer, with well-documented safety and feasibility. However, data on long-term results are limited.

METHODS

This study was based on a prospective data collection via a maintained database in a large colorectal unit. The database included patients who underwent TaTME from December 2013 through July 2019. We have updated the database through a review of patient charts, including radiology and pathology reports. Data collection included operative details, intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, pathologic results, and oncologic results.

RESULTS

During the study period, two hundred patients underwent TaTME in the study period (men = 147). The mean BMI was 26.7%, and the mean tumor height from the anal verge was 7.86 cm. Neoadjuvant treatment was given to 22% of patients. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 9.3% of patients, and the overall rate of postoperative complications was 24.5%. The TME specimen was incomplete in 11% of patients, and the CRM was positive in 5.5% of patients. Local recurrence (LR) occurred in seven patients with a follow-up of at least 2 years (4.7%). Distant metastasis (DM) occurred in 12% of patients. The overall survival was 90% and disease-free survival was 81%. The operating time was reduced in the later period of our experience.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that TaTME is feasible, safe, and had acceptable short-term outcomes and an acceptable rate of LR. The study included, however, one group that was non-randomized, and the follow-up was not long enough for most patients. Studies with longer follow-up data are awaited.

What is the advantage of rectal amputation with an initial perineal approach for primary anorectal carcinoma?

Background

Rectal amputation (RA) remains an important surgical procedure for salvage despite advances in sphincter-preserving resection, including intersphincteric resection. The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of RA with an initial perineal approach to those of RA with an initial abdominal approach (conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR)) for primary anorectal cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of 48 patients who underwent RA with an initial perineal approach (perineal group) and 21 patients who underwent RA with an initial abdominal approach (conventional group).

Results

For the perineal group, the operation time was shorter than that for the conventional group (313 vs. 388 min, p = 0.027). The postoperative complication rate was similar between the two groups (43.8 vs. 47.6%, p = 0.766). Perineal wound complications (PWCs) were significantly fewer in the perineal group than in the conventional group (22.9 vs. 57.1%, p = 0.006). All 69 patients underwent complete TME, but positive CRM was significantly higher in the conventional group than in the perineal group (0 vs. 19.0%, p = 0.011). There were no significant differences in the recurrence (43.8 vs. 47.6%, p = 0.689), 5-year disease-free survival (63.7% vs. 56.7%, p = 0.665) and 5-year overall survival rates (82.5% vs. 66.2%, p = 0.323) between the two groups.

Conclusion

These data suggest that RA with an initial perineal approach for selective primary anorectal carcinoma is advantageous in minimizing PWCs and positive CRMs. Further investigations on the advantages of this approach are necessary.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Versus Transanal Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare techniques for rectal cancer resection.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Different surgical approaches exist for mesorectal excision.

METHODS

Systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials included, reporting on 6237 participants, comparing: open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision. No significant differences identified between treatments in intraoperative morbidity, conversion rate, grade III/IV morbidity, reoperation, anastomotic leak, nodes retrieved, involved distal margin, 5-year overall survival, and locoregional recurrence. Operative blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery compared with open, and with robotic surgery compared with open and laparoscopic. Robotic operative time was longer compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal. Laparoscopic operative time was longer compared with open. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in lower overall postoperative morbidity and fewer wound infections compared with open. Robotic surgery had fewer wound infections compared with open. Time to defecation was longer with open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic. Hospital stay was longer after open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic, and after laparoscopic surgery compared with robotic. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in more incomplete or nearly complete mesorectal excisions compared with open, and in more involved circumferential resection margins compared with transanal. Robotic surgery resulted in longer distal resection margins compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal.

CONCLUSIONS

The different techniques result in comparable perioperative morbidity and long-term survival. The laparoscopic and robotic approaches may improve postoperative recovery, and the open and transanal approaches may improve oncological resection. Technique selection should be based on expected benefits by individual patient.

Does conversion during laparoscopic rectal oncological surgery increases postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage rates? A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, regarding previous published studies, postoperative outcomes between patients undergoing rectal cancer resection performed by totally laparoscopic approach (LAP) compared to those who underwent peroperative conversion (CONV).

METHODS

Studies comparing LAP versus CONV for rectal cancer published until December 2017 were selected and submitted to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles were searched in Medline and Cochrane Trials Register Database. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.0.

RESULTS

Twelve prospective and retrospective studies with a total of 4503 patients who underwent fully laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer and a total of 612 patients who underwent conversion were included. Meta-analysis did not show any significant difference on overall mortality between both approaches (OR=0.47, 95%CI=0.18-1.22, P=0.12). However, Meta-analysis showed that anastomotic leakage rate, wound abscess rate and postoperative morbidity rate were significantly decreased with totally laparoscopic approach (OR=0.37, 95%CI =0.24-0.58, P<0.0001; OR=0.29, 95%CI=0.19-0.45, P<0.00001; OR=0.56, 95%CI=0.46-0.67, P<0.00001 respectively).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that conversion increases anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity and wound abscess rates without increasing mortality rate for patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer.

OPEN, LAPAROSCOPIC AND TRANSANAL TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND NETWORK META ANALYSIS

AIM: to compare the effectiveness of different methods of total mesorectumectomy (TME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: the systematic review performed in accordance with PRISMA practice and recommendations.

RESULTS: Forty-one papers were included in the analysis. Fourteen studies were for transanal total mesorectumectomy (TA TME) (n=480) compared with laparoscopic (LA TME), 26 – for LA TME vs open (n=6820), 1 – for open vs TA TME. There was no significant difference between open TME, LA TME and TA TME in grade 3 quality of mesorectumectomy by Quirke. The positive circular resection margin (CRM) is less often in TA TME group, then LA TME (OR=2.58, CI 1.34-4.97, p=0.005). There was significantly lower positive CRM rate in LA TME then open TME (OR=0.73, CI 0.63-0.85, p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications rates between LA TME and TA TME (p=0.72). Network meta-analysis showed less postoperative complications followed LA TME than open TME (OR=0.75, CI 0.65-0.84).

CONCLUSION: TA TME is comparable with laparoscopic and open TME in short term results. Rates of positive CRM, the quality of Grade 1 mesorectal excision, the conversion rate, the postoperative urinary dysfunction, may have better results in TA TME.

Oncological Outcomes and Quality of Life After Rectal Cancer Surgery

Surgery for rectal cancer has been completely revolutionized thanks to the adoption of new technologies and up-to-date surgical procedures that have been applied to the traditional milestone represented by Total Mesorectal Excision (TME). The multimodal and multidisciplinary approach, with new technologies increased the patients' life expectancies; nevertheless, they have placed the surgeon in front of newer issues, represented by both oncological outcomes and the patients' need of a less destructive surgery and improved quality of life. In this review we will go through laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME surgery, to show how the correct choice of the most appropriate technique, together with a deep knowledge of oncological principles and pelvic anatomy, is crucial to pursue an optimal cancer treatment. Novel technologies might also help to decrease the patients' fear of surgery and address important issues such as cosmesis and improved preservation of postoperative functionality.

[Transanal total mesorectal excision-a critical appraisal]

INTRODUCTION

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the international standard for rectal cancer surgery. In addition to laparoscopic TME (lapTME), transanal TME (taTME) was developed in recent years to reduce the rate of incomplete TME, conversion to open surgery and postoperative functional impairment. Despite limited evidence, this technique is becoming increasingly more popular and is already routinely used by many hospitals for rectal cancer in varying tumor level locations. The aim of this review was to evaluate the taTME compared to anterior rectal resection with lapTME as the standard of care in rectal cancer surgery based on currently available evidence.

METHOD

The databases PubMed and Medline were systematically searched for publications on transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). Relevant studies were selected and further research based on the reference lists was undertaken.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies analyzing 3782 patients were identified. The taTME does not lead to a higher rate of complete TME-resected specimens compared to the standard procedure. So far, superiority could not be demonstrated for complication rates or for functional or oncological results. Serious complications secondary to dissection in incorrect planes were observed. The anastomotic level generally seems to be closer to the sphincter after taTME versus anterior lapTME.

CONCLUSION

Considering current evidence, taTME failed to show superiority compared to conventional anterior lapTME. Although taTME has some potential advantages, it carries substantial risks. If performed outside of clinical trials, it should therefore only be used in carefully selected patients with a high possibility of conversion, following adequate patient informed consent and after intense and systematic training of the surgeon.

Anastomotic leak after transanal total mesorectal excision: grading of severity and management aimed at preservation of the anastomosis

AIM

The transanal approach to total mesorectal excision (TaTME) as an alternative to conventional anterior resection offers an improved view to otherwise restricted anatomical regions in obese and narrow male pelves and unfavourable tumour locations. Guidelines for the management of anastomotic leakage (AL) following low rectal resections are scarce.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data of all consecutive patients undergoing TaTME between December 2014 and April 2017 in our centre were analysed retrospectively. Existing classification systems for AL were modified with regard to transanal anastomotic-preserving management.

RESULTS

TaTME was performed in 66 patients with a median age of 56.2 years. The overall incidence of AL was 12.1% (n = 8). AL grading was differentiated in Grades I to V according to the severity of necrosis and abscess development. Two patients suffered from AL Grade II, one patient from Grade III, three patients from Grade IV and two patients from Grade V. Preservation of the anastomosis following AL was achieved by the damage control concept in six of eight patients (75%) with a median duration of hospital stay of 36 days. Two patients received a Hartmann procedure (Grades IV and V).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that management of AL following TaTME is challenging but definitely amenable to strategies aimed at preserving the anastomosis by appropriate damage control. The modified classification system might serve as guidance for anastomosis-preserving management.

Completely Abdominal Approach Laparoscopic Partial Intersphincteric Resection After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Initial cT3 Juxta-Anal Rectal Cancer

Purpose: Traditional intersphincteric resection is a technically demanding procedure that required a perineal approach dissection and a handsewn coloanal anastomosis. Our study was to investigate the feasibility and the prognostic factors of completely abdominal approach partial intersphincteric resection (APISR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for low rectal cancer with initial stage cT3. Methods: A total of 101 consecutive patients with initial stage cT3 juxta-anal rectal cancer who underwent APISR after neoadjuvant CRT between January 2010 and March 2015 were enrolled. Survival rates were estimated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazard model was utilized for multivariable analysis for disease-free survival (DFS). The cutoff values of residual tumor size calculated by X-tile were used in the multivariate analysis as well. Results: The median follow-up was 39 months. The local recurrence rate within 3 years was 2.5%. The 3-year DFS rate was 80.2%, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 95.3%. The 3-year DFS in pathological stage 0-III were 96.2%, 94.4%, 85.7%, and 44.7% respectively (Log-rank = 29.791, P < .001). In multivariate analysis, stage ypN1-2 (hazard ratio (HR) = 8.256, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.742-24.855, P < .001) and tumor size after CRT more than 2.8 cm (HR = 3.077, 95% CI: 1.036-9.137, P = .043) were the independent factors for worse DFS. Conclusions: Laparoscopic and open APISR after CRT produces satisfactory mid-term oncological outcomes for juxta-anal rectal cancer downstaged from initial cT3 especially in stage ypN0 or with tumor size after CRT <2.8 cm. Hence, stage ypN1-2 and tumor size after CRT more than 2.8 cm are poor prognostic factors that should be estimated for APISR.