A meta-analysis comparing transanal vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Functional outcomes after resections for low rectal tumors: comparison of Transanal with laparoscopic Total Mesorectal excision

Background

Aim of this study was to evaluate functional outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in comparison to conventional laparoscopic approach (LaTME) in terms of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS).

Methods

Forty-six patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer between 2013 and 2017 were enrolled. Primary outcome was the severity of faecal incontinence, assessed both before the treatment and 6 months after ileostomy reversal. LARS score and Jorge-Wexner scale were utilized to analyze its severity.

Results

Twenty (87%) from TaTME and 21 (91%) from LaTME group developed LARS postoperatively. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of LARS occurrence (p = 0.63) and severity. The median Wexner score was comparable in both groups (8 [IQR: 4–12] vs 7 [3–11], p = 0.83). Univariate analysis revealed that postoperative complications were a risk factor for LARS development (p = 0.02). Perioperative outcomes, including operative time, blood loss and intraoperative adverse events did not differ significantly between groups either. Five TaTME patients developed postoperative complications, while there were morbidity 6 cases in LaTME group. Quality of mesorectal excision was comparable with 20 and 19 complete cases in TaTME and LaTME groups, respectively.

Conclusions

TaTME provided comparable outcomes in terms of functional outcomes in comparison to LaTME for total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancers. Having said that, LARS prevalence is still high and requires further evaluation of the technique.

[Transanal mesorectumectomy for rectal cancer - is it optimal surgery for 'difficult' patients?]

AIM

To compare short-term outcomes after transanal total mesorectumectomy (Ta-TME) and laparoscopic (Lap-TME) procedure in 'difficult' patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective nonrandomized trial included patients with confirmed middle-/low rectum adenocarcinoma T1-4aN0-2M0 for the period November 2013 - September 2016. We identified 20 out of 55 in TA-TME and 14 out of 54 patients in Lap-TME group as those of 'difficult' subgroup: male, BMI ≥25 кг/м², previous chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

RESULTS

Time of surgery, blood loss, conversions rate, postoperative morbidity and length of hospital-stay were similar in both groups. Hardware anastomoses were more frequent in TA-TME compared with LAP-TME group (78.9% vs. 50%, p=0.086). Specimen quality was more favorable in TA-TME group: Grade I 10% in Ta-TME group vs. 28.6% in Lap-TME group; 'positive' CRM 5% vs. 14.3%, р=0.365. Within-group analysis did not reveal any differences between 'difficult' and 'typical' patients by surgical and pathomorphological characteristics in TA-TME group in contrast to Lap-TME group. Median of follow-up was 24.6 (IR 10.6-40.2) and 23.8 (IR 12.1-39.9) months for TA-TME and Lap-TME groups, respectively. Local recurrence occurred in 1 (1.8%) 'difficult' patient after Ta-TME. Distant metastases were observed in 1 (1.8%) patient of Ta-TME and 2 (3.7%) patients of Lap-TME group. Actuarial 3-years reccurence-free survival was 95.7% for Ta-TME and 93.9% for Lap-TME group, respectively (p=0.923).

CONCLUSION

TA-TME is advisable for 'difficult' patients. Further multicenter randomized trials are necessary to specify the effectiveness of TA-TME in these patients.