Residual mesorectum on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging following transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME) in rectal cancer

Roles of MRI evaluation of pelvic recurrence in patients with rectal cancer

Developments in the multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer with advances in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), surgical techniques, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy have had a significant impact on patient outcomes, increasing the rates of curative surgeries and reducing pelvic recurrence. Patients with pelvic recurrence have worse prognoses, with an impact on morbidity and mortality. Although local recurrence is more frequent within 2 years of surgical resection of the primary tumor, late recurrence may occur. Clinical manifestations can vary from asymptomatic, nonspecific symptoms, to pelvic pain, bleeding, and fistulas. Synchronous metastatic disease occurs in approximately 50% of patients diagnosed with local recurrence. MRI plays a crucial role in posttreatment follow-up, whether by identifying viable neoplastic tissues or acting as a tool for therapeutic planning and assessing the resectability of these lesions. Locally recurrent tissues usually have a higher signal intensity than muscle on T2-weighted imaging. Thus, attention is required for focal heterogeneous lesions, marked contrast enhancement, early invasive behavior, and asymmetric appearance, which are suspicious for local recurrence. However, postsurgical inflammatory changes related to radiotherapy and fibrosis make it difficult to detect initial lesions. This study therefore aimed to review the main imaging patterns of pelvic recurrence and their implications for the surgical decision-making process. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: MRI plays a crucial role in the posttreatment follow-up of rectal cancer, whether by identifying viable neoplastic tissues or by acting as a tool for therapeutic planning. This study reviewed the main imaging patterns of pelvic recurrence. KEY POINTS: MRI aids in surgical planning and the detection of pelvic recurrence and postoperative complications. Being familiar with surgical techniques enables radiologists to identify expected MRI findings. Patterns of rectal cancer recurrence have been categorized by pelvic compartments. Neoplastic tissue may mimic postsurgical and postradiotherapy changes. Resectability of pelvic recurrence is highly related to lesion location.

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.

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.

The endorectal incision level of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME): An emphasis on the distance from the anterior vs. posterior mesorectal ends to the anal verge

BACKGROUND

There is no intraluminal guidance to ensure complete inclusion of the mesorectum in transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). This study aimed to assess the distance difference between the anterior and posterior mesorectal terminal ends and the anal verge as a potential risk for residual mesorectum after resection.

METHODS

Forty-four surgical specimens of extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and 28 mid-sagittal cadaveric specimens were included to this study. The distance between the mesorectum terminal end (T) and the endoluminal landmarks (dentate line (D)/anal verge (A)) was measured and compared between men and women. Furthermore, 66 MRI images from The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) were used to validate the same concept in a non-Asian population.

RESULTS

The mesorectal terminal end was found to be aligned along with the levator hiatus. From the midsagittal view, the ELAPE specimens showed that the distance between T and A anteriorly was significantly longer than the same distance posteriorly (34.74±7.79mm vs 23.74±4.24mm, P<0.001). Similarly, the distance measured in the cadaveric specimens was significantly longer anteriorly than posteriorly (P<0.001). The validation cohort of non-Asian MRI image has confirmed the same (56.68±14.17mm vs. 38.18 ±10.42mm, P<0.001(. There was no significant difference between men and women.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the remarkable distance difference between the anterior and posterior mesorectal terminal ends away from the anal verge, the taTME proctectomy level may not meet the required mesorectal end. Thus, if TME is planned, aligning the proctectomy level around the levator hiatus would be the best place that can ensure complete TME.

Surgical Outcomes, Long-Term Recurrence Rate, and Resource Utilization in a Prospective Cohort of 165 Patients Treated by Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Distal Rectal Cancer

A transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a smart alternative to a conventional TME. However, worrisome reports of a high recurrence and complications triggered a moratorium in a few countries. This study assessed the outcomes and resource utilization of a taTME. Consecutive patients with distal rectal cancer treated by a taTME were prospectively included. Outcomes were reported as the median and interquartile range (IQR). One hundred sixty-five patients (67% male and 33% female) with a tumor 7 cm (IQR 5-10) from the anal verge were followed for 50 months (IQR 32-79). The resection margins were threatened in 25% of the patients, while 75% of the patients received neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. A good mesorectal dissection and clear margins were achieved in 96% of the specimens, and 27 lymph nodes (IQR 20-38) were harvested. Ninety-day major morbidity affected 36 patients (21.8%), including 12 with anastomotic leakages (7.2%). A recurrence occurred locally in 9 patients (5.4%), and 44 patients had a distant metastasis (26.7%). The five-year disease-free survival and overall survival were 67% and 90%, respectively. A multivariate analysis found a long operation and frailty predicted an anastomotic leak, while a positive distal margin and lymph nodes predicted a local recurrence and distant metastasis. A two-team taTME saved 102 min of operative time and EUR 1385 when compared to a one-team approach. Transanal total mesorectal excision produced sound surgical quality and excellent oncologic outcomes.

Current status of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer and the expanding indications of the transanal approach for extended pelvic surgeries

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has been rapidly accepted as a promising surgical approach to the distal rectum. The benefits include ease of access to the bottom of the deep pelvis linearly over a short distance in order to easily visualize the important anatomy. Furthermore, the distal resection margins can be secured under direct vision. Additionally, a two-team approach combining taTME with a transabdominal approach could decrease the operative time and conversion rate. Although taTME was expected to become more rapidly popularized worldwide, enthusiasm for it has stalled due to unfamiliar intraoperative complications, a lack of oncologic evidence from randomized trials, and the widespread use of robotic surgery. While international registries have reported favorable short- and medium-term outcomes from taTME, a Norwegian national study reported a high local recurrence rate of 9.5%. The characteristics of the recurrences included rapid, multifocal growth in the pelvis, which was quite different from recurrences following traditional transabdominal TME; thus, the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Group reached a consensus for a temporary moratorium on the performance of taTME. To ensure acceptable baseline quality and patient safety, taTME should be performed by well-trained colorectal surgeons. Although the appropriate indications for taTME remain controversial, the transanal approach is extremely important as a means of goal setting in difficult TME cases and as an aid to the transabdominal approach in various types of extended pelvic surgeries. The benefits in transanal lateral lymph node dissection and pelvic exenteration are presented herein.

Required distal mesorectal resection margin in partial mesorectal excision: a systematic review on distal mesorectal spread

BACKGROUND

The required distal margin in partial mesorectal excision (PME) is controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to determine incidence and distance of distal mesorectal spread (DMS).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. Articles eligible for inclusion were studies reporting on the presence of distal mesorectal spread in patients with rectal cancer who underwent radical resection.

RESULTS

Out of 2493 articles, 22 studies with a total of 1921 patients were included, of whom 340 underwent long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). DMS was reported in 207 of 1921 (10.8%) specimens (1.2% in CRT group and 12.8% in non-CRT group), with specified distance of DMS relative to the tumor in 84 (40.6%) of the cases. Mean and median DMS were 20.2 and 20.0 mm, respectively. Distal margins of 40 mm and 30 mm would result in 10% and 32% residual tumor, respectively, which translates into 1% and 4% overall residual cancer risk given 11% incidence of DMS. The maximum reported DMS was 50 mm in 1 of 84 cases. In subgroup analysis, for T3, the mean DMS was 18.8 mm (range 8-40 mm) and 27.2 mm (range 10-40 mm) for T4 rectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

DMS occurred in 11% of cases, with a maximum of 50 mm in less than 1% of the DMS cases. For PME, substantial overtreatment is present if a distal margin of 5 cm is routinely utilized. Prospective studies evaluating more limited margins based on high-quality preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and pathological assessment are required.

Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection vs. transanal total mesorectal excision in overweight patients with low rectal cancer

Objective

Anus-preserving surgery in overweight patients with low rectal cancer has been a challenge due to the narrow operating space. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) was once a standard therapeutic option for low rectal cancer. The effectiveness of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) in treating this group of patients remains uncertain as a new surgical strategy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term effects of taTME with ISR in overweight patients with low rectal cancer.

Methods

A total of 53 patients with low rectal cancer were treated with taTME in 31 cases and ISR in 22 cases. The surgery-related data, pathological manifestations of surgical specimens, postoperative recovery, and postoperative complications were compared.

Results

Patients in both groups completed the surgery successfully. There were no significant differences in operative time, blood loss, anastomotic distance from the anal verge and ileostomy between the two groups (P > 0.05). TaTME group performed or virtually finished resection of the rectal mesentery, and no positive cases of Circumferential Resection Margin (CRM) or Distal Resection Margin (DRM) were detected in either group. The number of lymph nodes found in surgical specimens did not change significantly between the two groups (P = 0.391). In the subgroup analysis, however, more lymph nodes were detected in female patients undergoing taTME than in male patients (P = 0.028). The ISR group took less time to remove the drainage tubes (P = 0.013) and the same results were obtained in both groups of male patients in the subgroup analysis (P = 0.011). There were no statistically significant differences in time to start liquid diet, time to remove catheters, time to start flatus, time to begin ambulation, postoperative hospital stay, and readmission within 30 days after surgery between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, female patients in the taTME group were initiated ambulation earlier than males in the subgroup analysis (P = 0.034). The difference was insignificant in the occurrence of postoperative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

taTME is safe and feasible for the treatment of overweight patients with low rectal cancer.

Mesentery in Transanal TME

Oncological adequacy in rectal cancer surgery mandates not only a clear distal and circumferential resection margin but also resection of the entire ontogenetic mesorectal package. Incomplete removal of the mesentery is one of the commonest causes of local recurrences. The completeness of the resection is not only determined by tumor and patient related factors but also by the patient-tailored treatment selected by the multidisciplinary team. This is performed in the context of the technical ability and experience of the surgeon to ensure an optimal total mesorectal excision (TME). In TME, popularized by Professor Heald in the early 1980s as a sharp dissection through the avascular embryologic plane, the midline pedicle of tumor and mesorectum is separated from the surrounding, mostly paired structures of the retroperitoneum. Although TME significantly improved the oncological and functional results of rectal cancer surgery, the difficulty of the procedure is still mainly dependent on and determined by the dissection of the most distal part of the rectum and mesorectum. To overcome some of the limitations of working in the narrowest part of the pelvis, robotic and transanal surgery have been shown to improve the access and quality of resection in minimally invasive techniques. Whatever technique is chosen to perform a TME, embryologically derived planes and anatomical points of reference should be identified to guide the surgery. Standardization of the chosen technique, widespread education, and training of surgeons, as well as caseloads per surgeon, are important factors to optimize outcomes. In this article, we discuss the introduction of transanal TME, with emphasis on the mesentery, relevant anatomy, standard procedural steps, and importance of a training pathway.

Structured training curriculums for transanal total mesorectal excision in China: refinement is needed

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is an alternative for mid-low rectal cancer. In China, this procedure has been performed in high-volume centers with structured training curriculums. The efficacy of the TaTME structured training curriculums in China is still unclear. This multicenter study aimed to explore the effectiveness of the structured training curriculums in China.

METHODS

Seven high-volume centers in China participated in this study. The first 25 patients who underwent TaTME in each center were enrolled. In the cohort, patients were divided into 3 groups. The first 5 procedures (group 1) were performed under proctoring according to the requirement of structured training curriculums. The latter 20 cases without proctoring were split into 2 groups (10 cases in each group, groups 2 and 3) according to the order of operation date. The baseline characteristics, perioperative complications, and pathological outcomes were compared between groups 1 and 2, as well as between groups 2 and 3.

RESULTS

Symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL) occurred in 18.6% of the patients in group 2 compared with 5.7% in group 1 (P1=0.08) and 5.0% in group 3 (P2=0.04). Seven (11.3%) patients in group 2 developed defecation disorders whereas no patients had this complication in group 3 (P2=0.02). Compared with group 2, the operative time was shorter (235 vs. 223 min, P2=0.40), while the rates of intraoperative complications (15.7% vs. 5.7%, P2=0.10), postoperative complications (31.3% vs. 25.7%, P2=0.06), AL (20.0% vs. 8.6%, P2=0.04), and positive distal resection margin (DRM) (7.5% vs. 2.9%, P2=0.27) were lower in group 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of the structured training curriculums was acceptable but needed further improvement. The prevalence of anastomosis-related complications and the quality control of specimens are still not optimal, and measures for refinement (for example, more cases under proctoring) are needed in the curriculums.

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.

Impact of Surgical Approach on Surgical Resection Quality in Mid- and Low Rectal Cancer, A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

AIM

To evaluate the evidence concerning the quality of surgical resection in laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RobTME) and transanal (TaTME) total mesorectal excision for mid-/low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was performed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was utilized to compare surgical resection involved in these 3 surgical techniques by using ADDIS software. Rates of positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) were the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 34 articles, 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 32 non-RCTs, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data showed CRM positivity in 114 of 1763 LapTME procedures (6.5%), 54 of 1051 RobTME procedures (5.1%) and 60 of 1276 TaTME procedures (4.7%). There was no statistically significant difference among these 3 surgical approaches in terms of CRM involvement rates and all other surgical resection quality outcomes. The incomplete mesorectal excision rates were 9.6% (69/720) in the LapTME group, 1.9% (11/584) in the RobTME group and 5.6% (45/797) in the TaTME group. Pooled network analysis observed a higher but not statistically significant risk of incomplete mesorectum when comparing both LapTME with RobTME (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 0.48-11.17) and LapTME with TaTME (OR = 1.90; 95% CI = 0.99-5.25). By comparison, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best or second best in terms of CRM involvement, complete mesorectal excision, rate of distal resection margin (DRM) involvement and length of DRMs. In addition, RobTME achieved a greater mean tumor distance to the CRM than TaTME. It is worth noting that TaTME was most likely to be ranked the worst in terms of CRM involvement for intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Overall, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best in terms of the quality of surgical resection for the treatment of mid-/low rectal cancer. TaTME should be performed with caution in the treatment of low rectal cancer.

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.

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.

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.

Short- and mid-term outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Purpose

The current meta-analysis combining mid and low rectal cancer with no meta-analysis only for low rectal cancer was seen. This meta-analysis was to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for low rectal cancer.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using the web-based databases; China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Database, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Wanfang Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated using the Jadad scale and non-RCTs (NRCs) were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

Ten studies (2 RCTs and 8 NRCs) involving 772 patients were included. Among them, 378 patients underwent TaTME and 394 patients underwent LaTME. Compared with the LaTME group, the conversion rate was low (risk ratio [RR], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11–0.54; P < 0.001), the circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement was low (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27–0.86; P = 0.010), and the hospital stay was short (mean difference, −1.72; 95% CI, −2.89 to −0.55; P = 0.004) in the TaTME group. No significant differences were seen in the mesorectal resection quality, CRM distance, distal resection margin (DRM) involvement, DRM distance, local R1 resection, intraoperative complications, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, severe morbidity, mortality, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, and local recurrence rate (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The TaTME is a promising surgical technique and is fully a safe and efficacious option in managing low rectal cancer.

Transanal total mesorectal excision outcomes for advanced rectal cancer in a complex surgical population

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard for oncologic resection in low and mid rectal cancers. However, abdominal approaches to TME can be hampered by poor visibility, inadequate retraction, and distal margin delineation. Transanal TME (taTME) is a promising hybrid technique that was developed to mitigate the difficulties of operating in the low pelvis and to optimize the circumferential resection and distal margins.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to characterize our experience implementing taTME at our institution in a technically challenging patient population. We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent taTMEs between November 2013 and May 2019 for rectal cancer at a tertiary community cancer center. Outcome measures included pathologic grading of TME specimen, post-operative complications, and oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients with mid and low rectal cancer underwent low anterior resection via taTME. The most common staging modality was rectal MRI which demonstrated T3 or T4 tumors in 89% of our patients prior to neoadjuvant. Eighty-six percent of patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The initial cases were performed sequentially as a single team, but we later transitioned to a synchronous, two-team approach. Ninety-one percent of TME grades were complete or near complete. Only one patient (2.3%) had a positive circumferential margin. Six patients developed anastomotic leaks with an overall anastomotic complication rate of 18.2%. Two patients (4.5%) with primary rectal cancer developed local recurrence, one of which developed multifocal local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the taTME approach on selected locally advanced low rectal cancers, especially in technically complex irradiated and obese male patients, has yielded comparably safe and effective outcomes to laparoscopic proctectomy.

Current Surgical Strategies for the Treatment of Rectal Adenocarcinoma and the Risk of Local Recurrence

BACKGROUND

Despite new medical and surgical strategies, 5-year local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma was reported in up to 25% of cases. Therefore, we aimed to review surgical strategies for the prevention of local recurrences in rectal cancer.

SUMMARY

After implementation of the total mesorectal excision (TME), surgical resection of rectal adenocarcinoma with anterior resection or abdominoperineal excision (APE) allowed decrease in local recurrence (3% at 5 years). More recently, extralevator APE was described as an alternative to APE, decreasing specimen perforation and recurrence rate. Moreover, technique modifications were developed to optimize rectal resection, such as the laparoscopic or robotic approach, and transanal TME. However, the technical advantages conferred by these techniques did not translate into a decreased recurrence rate. Lateral lymph node dissection is another technique, which aimed at improving the long-term outcomes; nevertheless, there is currently no evidence to recommend its routine use. Strategies to preserve the rectum are also emerging, such as local excision, and may be beneficial for subgroups of patients. Key Messages: Rectal cancer management requires a multidisciplinary approach, and surgical strategy should be tailored to patient factors: general health, previous perineal intervention, anatomy, preference, and tumor characteristics such as stage and localization.

A comparative cost analysis of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Despite proven clinical benefits in the short term, technical difficulties limit utilization of laparoscopy in rectal cancer surgery (RCS). Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) overcomes many technical limitations of laparoscopic RCS. However, the costs of this procedure have not been addressed yet. Our goal was to perform a comparative cost analysis of taTME and laparoscopic TME (lapTME). Consecutive patients undergoing curative TME between 1 February 2014 and 31 October 2018 were selected from a prospectively maintained database and stratified, according to the type of procedure, into taTME and lapTME groups. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative parameters, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. The main outcome measure was intraoperative costs of the two procedures. Secondary outcomes were short-term outcome and the utilization of hospital resources to manage the postoperative course. Hundred and fifty-two patients with rectal cancer (66 lapTME, 86 taTME) were included in the study. Surgical supplies required for taTME procedure exceeded the cost of lapTME of 754,54 €. The duration of surgery was not significantly different between the two approaches (266 ± 92.85 vs 271 ± 83.63, p = 0.50). Short-term outcomes were comparable including postoperative complication rate (17 vs 20%, p = 0.68), reintervention rate, and length of stay. There was no difference in hospital resources utilization to manage postoperative course including blood test, diagnostics, consultations, and medications. TaTME has higher intraoperative costs in terms of supplies with respect to lapTME. Short-term outcomes and hospital resources to manage postoperative course are comparable.

Pure transanal endoscopic colectomy for ascending colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated that pure transanal endoscopic surgery is safe and feasible in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, the role of pure transanal endoscopic colectomy in ascending colon cancer (ACC) treatment has not been evaluated. We report a case of transanal endoscopic surgery for ACC.

METHODS

A 35-year-old woman was treated for ACC, using a transanal endoscopic surgery device as the operation platform, and pure transanal endoscopic right hemicolectomy without transabdominal assistance was safely performed. An instrument suture, side-to-side, ileocolic anastomosis was performed. Operative time was 245 min and intraoperative blood loss was 60 ml.

RESULTS

The patient recovered well from the surgery. Compared with the traditional approach, this approach was less invasive and resulted in satisfactory outcomes and cosmesis (no scar).

CONCLUSIONS

Application of pure transanal endoscopic colectomy without abdominal assistance to ACC appears to be feasible and safe.

Impact of a multidisciplinary training programme on outcome of upper rectal cancer by critical appraisal of the extent of mesorectal excision with postoperative MRI

BACKGROUND

Optimal management of patients with upper rectal cancer remains unclear. Partial mesorectal excision (PME) without neoadjuvant therapy is currently advocated for the majority of patients. Recent studies, however, reported a high risk of local recurrence and suboptimal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a quality assurance initiative with postoperative MRI to improve outcomes in these patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent mesorectal excision with curative intent for rectal cancer in 2007-2013 were included. Postoperative MRI of the pelvis was performed 1 year after surgery. In 2011, a multidisciplinary workshop with focus on extent and completeness of surgery was held for training surgeons, pathologists and radiologists involved in treatment planning. Images of residual mesorectum and histopathological reports were reviewed with regard to the distal resection margin. Local recurrence after a minimum of 3 years' follow-up was compared between two cohorts from 2007-2010 and 2011-2013.

RESULTS

A total of 627 patients were included; postoperative MRI of the pelvis was done in 381 patients. The 3-year actuarial local recurrence rate in patients with upper rectal cancer improved from 12·9 to 5·0 per cent (P = 0·012). After the workshop, fewer patients with cancer of the upper rectum were selected to have PME (90·8 per cent in 2007-2010 versus 80·2 per cent in 2011-2013; P = 0·023), and fewer patients who underwent PME had an insufficient distal resection margin (61·7 versus 31 per cent respectively; P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

Quality assessment of surgical practice may have a major impact on oncological outcome after surgery for upper rectal cancer.

Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has been suspended in Norway

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer has emerged as an alternative to the traditional abdominal approach. However, concerns have been raised about local recurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate local recurrence after TaTME. Secondary aims included postoperative mortality, anastomotic leak and stoma rates.

Methods

Data on all patients who underwent TaTME were recorded and compared with those from national cohorts in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry (NCCR) and the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery (NoRGast). Kaplan–Meier estimates were used to compare local recurrence.

Results

In Norway, 157 patients underwent TaTME for rectal cancer between October 2014 and October 2018. Three of seven hospitals abandoned TaTME after a total of five procedures. The local recurrence rate was 12 of 157 (7·6 per cent); eight local recurrences were multifocal or extensive. The estimated local recurrence rate at 2·4 years was 11·6 (95 per cent c.i. 6·6 to 19·9) per cent after TaTME compared with 2·4 (1·4 to 4·3) per cent in the NCCR (P &lt; 0·001). The adjusted hazard ratio was 6·71 (95 per cent c.i. 2·94 to 15·32). Anastomotic leaks resulting in reoperation occurred in 8·4 per cent of patients in the TaTME cohort compared with 4·5 per cent in NoRGast (P = 0·047). Fifty-six patients (35·7 per cent) had a stoma at latest follow-up; 39 (24·8 per cent) were permanent.

Conclusion

Anastomotic leak rates after TaTME were higher than national rates; local recurrence rates and growth patterns were unfavourable.

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.

Total mesorectal excision for low and middle rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus transanal approach-a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appeared to be a challenging alternative to Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LaTME) for low and middle rectal cancer. However, evidence remains low on the possible benefits of TaTME. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of comparative studies between TaTME and LaTME.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted on Medline, Embase, and Cochrane database. The following outcomes were assessed: conversion, operative time, morbidity, length of stay, readmission rate, and pathological and oncological results.

RESULTS

After review of 756 identified records, 14 studies were included (case-matched control n = 10, prospective cohort n = 3, retrospective study n = 1) comparing 495 TaTME and 547 LaTME. No randomized trial was available. Following criteria were significantly improved after TaTME vs. LaTME: readmission's rate (9% after TaTME vs. 18% after LaTME, OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.26-0.74, p = 0.002), length of stay (OR - 2.17, 95%CI - 3.68 to - 0.66, p = 0.005), overall morbidity (34 vs. 41%, OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.46-0.91, p = 0.001), major morbidity (8.7 vs. 14%, OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.34-0.83, p = 0.005), anastomotic leak (6.4 vs. 11.6%, OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.31-0.93, p = 0.03), and circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement (4 vs. 8.8%, OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.27-0.86, p = 0.01). No significant differences were observed between TaTME and LaTME regarding conversion's rate (3.2 vs. 8.8%, p = 0.09), operative time (OR - 10.73, p = 0.26), intraoperative complications (8.1 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.48), minor morbidity (27.9 vs. 29.6%, p = 0.27), positive distal resection margin (1.4 vs. 1.4%, p = 0.93), complete TME (75 vs. 75%, p = 0.74), harvested lymph nodes (OR 0.38, p = 0.44), and local recurrence rate (3.5 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.64).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis based on nonrandomized studies suggests that TaTME seems better than LaTME in terms of overall and major morbidities, anastomotic leak, readmission rate, CRM involvement, and length of stay. These results need to be confirmed by randomized controlled trial.

Systemic review and network meta-analysis comparing minimal surgical techniques for rectal cancer: quality of total mesorectum excision, pathological, surgical, and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimal invasive surgery has revolutionized recovery in rectal cancer patients. However, there has been debate on its effect on quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and oncological outcomes. This network meta-analysis compares laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and transanal TMEs. This study shows that All three surgical techniques are comparable across TME quality and oncological outcomes. Ultimately, good outcomes are based on each individual surgeon choosing an approach based on their expertise.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: Is There a Real Advantage? The Baltic View

BACKGROUND

The novel surgical procedure transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has rapidly become an interest of research in order to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of middle and low rectal cancer. taTME is a new natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery modality combining three rectal surgery techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective clinical study was conducted in a single centre for a period of 3 years, and herein we report on our first 25 taTME procedures in patients with middle and lower third rectal adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

The main demographics were evaluated. The mean age of patients was 64 ± 12 years. There were predominantly males (72%) and 7 female patients (28%) with an average body mass index of 29 ± 4.8 kg/m2. High blood pressure, obesity, chronic heart insufficiency, chronic atrial fibrillation, and diabetes mellitus were commonly diagnosed in all patients. A circumferential resection margin >1 mm was achieved in 16% (n = 4), >2 mm in 40% (n = 10), and >3 mm in 44% (n = 11) of operated patients. The average CRM was 1.8 ± 0.9 cm. In 24% of cases, the distance of a tumour from the mesorectal fascia (MRF) was <1 mm; meanwhile, for 76% of patients, the tumour margin was >1 mm from the MRF. Recovery to flatus was 3 ± 1 days. The average length of hospital stay was 11 ± 3 days. The overall postoperative morbidity was 8%, i.e. one (4%) complication classified as Clavien-Dindo degree I and one (4%) major (IIIb) complication. Subsequently, all patients successfully recovered and were discharged from hospital. During the follow-up period no cancer recurrence was observed.

CONCLUSION

Our results nicely demonstrate that taTME can be safely performed with acceptable perioperative complications in patients with middle or lower third rectal cancer. In addition, the perioperative morbidity is also acceptable. However, taTME remains a technically highly demanding operation but is feasible and safe after the appropriate experience is gained. Nevertheless, larger multi-centre prospective randomised studies are ongoing to confirm the safety and to verify oncological results when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME): current status and future perspectives

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard surgical treatment for mid- and low rectal cancer; however, it is associated with specific technical hurdles. Transanal TME (TaTME) is a new procedure developed to overcome these difficulties, through an enhanced visualization of the dissection plane. This potentially could result in a more accurate distal dissection with a lower rate of positive circumferential resection margins, increasing the rate of sphincter-saving procedures. The indications for TaTME are currently expanding, despite not being yet standardized, and structured training programs are ongoing to help overcome the steep learning curve related to the technique. The procedure is feasible and safe with similar intraoperative complications and readmission rates when compared with conventional open or laparoscopic TME. Favorable short-term oncologic results have been reported: in particular, TaTME is associated with mesorectal specimen of a better quality and a longer distal resection margin that is established at the beginning of the procedure under direct view. Robotics, when available, will probably overcome the steep learning curve related to the complexity of TaTME. Long-term follow-up and ongoing RCT trials data are awaited regarding functional results, local recurrence and survival, and to facilitate the comparison with standard laparoscopic or robotic rectal resections. The present review is focused on critically analyzing the theoretical benefits and risks of the procedure, its indications, short- and long-term results and future direction in the application of TaTME.