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

The role of superior hemorrhoidal vein ectasia in the preoperative staging of rectal cancer

Objective

The prognosis of colorectal cancer has continuously improved in recent years thanks to continuous progress in both the therapeutic and diagnostic fields. The specific objective of this study is to contribute to the diagnostic field through the evaluation of the correlation between superior hemorrhoidal vein (SHV) ectasia detected on computed tomography (CT) and Tumor (T), Node (N), and distant metastasis (M) examination and mesorectal fascia (MRF) invasion in the preoperative staging of rectal cancer.

Methods

Between January 2018 and April 2022, 46 patients with histopathological diagnosis of rectal cancer were retrospectively enrolled, and the diameter of the SHV was evaluated by CT examination. The cutoff value for SHV diameter used is 3.7 mm. The diameter was measured at the level of S2 during portal venous phase after 4× image zoom to reduce the interobserver variability. The parameters evaluated were tumor location, detection of MRF infiltration (defined as the distance < 1 mm between the tumor margins and the fascia), SHV diameter, detection of mesorectal perilesional lymph nodes, and detection of metastasis.

Results

A total of 67.39% (31/46) of patients had SHV ectasia. All patients with MRF infiltration (4/46, 7.14%) presented SHV ectasia (average diameter of 4.4 mm), and SHV was significantly related with the development of liver metastases at the moment of primary staging and during follow-up.

Conclusion

SHV ectasia may be related to metastasis and MRF involvement; therefore, it could become a tool for preoperative staging of rectal cancer.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria.

RESULTS

12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used.

CONCLUSION

Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.

Two-team lateral lymph node dissection assisted by the transanal approach for locally advanced lower rectal cancer: comparison with the conventional transabdominal approach

BACKGROUND

An optimal surgical approach to lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) remains controversial. With the recent popularity of transanal total mesorectal excision, a two-team procedure combining the transabdominal and transanal approaches was established as a novel approach to LLND. This study aimed to clarify the safety and feasibility of two-team LLND (2team-LLND) and compare its short-term outcomes with those of conventional transabdominal LLND (Conv-LLND).

METHODS

Between April 2013 and March 2020, 463 patients diagnosed with primary locally advanced rectal cancer underwent a transanal total mesorectal excision; among them, 93 patients who underwent bilateral prophylactic LLND were included in this single-center, retrospective study. Among these patients, 50 and 43 patients underwent Conv-LLND (the Conv-LLND group) and 2team-LLND (the 2team-LLND group), respectively. The short-term outcomes, including the operation time, blood loss volume, number of complications, and number of harvested lymph nodes, were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The intraoperative and postoperative complications in the 2team-LLND group were equivalent to those in the Conv-LLND group; furthermore, the incidence of postoperative urinary retention in the 2team-LLND group was acceptably low (9%). Compared with the Conv-LLND group, the 2team-LLND group had a significantly shorter operation time (P = 0.003), lower median blood loss (P = 0.02), and higher number of harvested lateral lymph nodes (P = 0.0005).

CONCLUSION

The intraoperative and postoperative complications of 2team-LLND were comparable with those of Conv-LLND. Thus, 2team-LLND was safe and feasible for advanced lower rectal cancer. Moreover, it was superior to Conv-LLND in terms of the operation time, blood loss volume, and number of harvested lateral lymph nodes. Therefore, it can be a promising LLND approach.

A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres

Background

Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview.

Method

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis.

Results

In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021261125.

UEG and EAES rapid guideline: Systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed European recommendations on TaTME for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to summarize best evidence and develop a rapid guideline using transparent, trustworthy, and standardized methodology.

METHODS

We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE, G-I-N, and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of four general surgeons practicing colorectal surgery, a radiologist with expertise in rectal cancer, a radiation oncologist, a pathologist, and a patient representative. We conducted a systematic review and the results of evidence synthesis by means of meta-analyses were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus.

RESULTS

This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation for the use of TaTME over laparoscopic or robotic TME for low rectal cancer when expertise is available. Furthermore, it details evidence gaps to be addressed by future research and discusses policy considerations. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494 .

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the use of TaTME for rectal cancer.

Meta-analysis of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a 'New Health Technology' assessment in South Korea

Purpose

Under the South Korea's unique health insurance structure, any new surgical technology must be evaluated first by the government in order to consider whether that particular technology can be applied to patients for further clinical trials as categorized as 'New Health Technology,' then potentially covered by the insurance sometime later. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer, activated by the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) TaTME committee.

Methods

We systematically searched Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane, and Korean databases (from their inception until August 31, 2019) for studies published that compare TaTME with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME). End-points included perioperative and pathological outcomes.

Results

Sixteen cohort studies (7 for case-matched studies) were identified, comprising 1,923 patients (938 TaTMEs and 985 LaTMEs). Regarding perioperative outcomes, the conversion rate was significantly lower in TaTME (risk ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.34; P < 0.001); whereas other perioperative outcomes were similar to LaTME. There were no statistically significant differences in pathological results between the 2 procedures.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis showed comparable results in preoperative and pathologic outcomes between TaTME and LaTME, and indicated the benefit of TaTME with low conversion. Extensive evaluations of well-designed, multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to come to unequivocal conclusions, but the results showed that TaTME is a potentially beneficial technique in some specific cases. This meta-analysis suggests that TaTME can be performed for rectal cancer patients as a 'New Health Technology' endorsed by NECA in South Korea.

Transanal Transection and Single-Stapled Anastomosis (TTSS): A comparison of anastomotic leak rates with the double-stapled technique and with transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

in the literature on rectal cancer (RC) surgery many studies have focused on the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) dissection, while there is a scarcity of comparative data on transection and anastomosis. No anastomosis has so far proved to be superior to any other. The aim of this study was to compare anastomotic leak (AL) rates between conventional laparoscopic double-stapled (DS), transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and Transanal Transection and Single-Stapled anastomosis (TTSS) techniques.

METHODS

consecutive mid-low RC patients undergoing elective laparoscopic TME with stapled anastomosis and protective stoma, by either DS, TaTME or TTSS techniques were retrieved from a prospectively collected database.

RESULTS

127 DS; 100 TaTME and 50 TTSS were included. Demographics, distance of the tumor from anal verge and neoadjuvant therapy were comparable. Operative time was longer in TaTME over DS and TTSS (p < 0.0001). More 90-days complications occurred in DS group vs TTSS (p = 0.029). The AL rate was 17.5% in DS, 6% in TaTME and 2% in TTSS group (p = 0.005). AL grade was: one B (2%) in TTSS; 2 grade B (2%) and 4 grade C (4%) in TaTME; 6 grade A (4.7%), 7 grade B (5.5%) and 9 grade C (7.1%) in DS group. Reintervention rate after AL was higher in DS group over TTSS (12.6% vs 2%; p = 0.003). The rate of stoma closure, pathology data and margin positivity did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

TTSS strategy is feasible, safe and leads to very low AL rates after TME for RC.