Perineal transanal approach: a new standard for laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer, a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260:993-999. [PMID: 24950270 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000000766]

Brief insight regarding the use of transanal, laparoscopic, and robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

In this article, we provide an important commentary on the original study Lu et al, which offers insight into the surgical efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME) in the management of low-lying locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). We focus specifically on the rate of postoperative complications between the two using existing data from the literature. We additionally introduce robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) and look at its postoperative complications relative to the TaTME and LapTME. LARC has been conventionally approached by open surgery. However, minimally invasive techniques have emerged over the past two decades as alternatives to open total mesorectal excision, namely robotic, laparoscopic, and transanal. Each approach has its supporters, but conflicting data on resection outcomes and complications has fueled ongoing debate over the optimal minimally invasive technique for low/mid-LARC. This article aims to extend on the data regarding the use of TaTME and RTME in the treatment of low/mid-LARC and further elaborate on their comparative efficacy relative to LapTME.

Histopathological outcomes of transanal, robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

While total mesorectal excision is the gold standard for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach to achieve adequate oncological outcomes remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the histopathological outcomes of robotic (R-RR), transanal (Ta-RR), laparoscopic (L-RR), and open (O-RR) resections for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened from inception to June 2024. Of the 4186 articles screened, 27 RCTs were selected. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses applying random effects models were performed.

RESULTS

The 27 RCTs included a total of 8696 patients. Bayesian pairwise meta-analysis revealed significantly lower odds of non-complete mesorectal excision with Ta-RR (Odds Ratio, OR, 0.60; 95%CI, 0.33, 0.92; P = .02; I2:11.7 %) and R-RR (OR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46, 0.94; P = .02; I2:41.7 %) compared with laparoscopy. Moreover, lower odds of positive CRMs were observed in the Ta-RR group than in the L-RR group (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.13, 0.91; P = .02; I2:43.9 %). The R-RR was associated with more lymph nodes harvested compared with L-RR (Mean Difference, MD, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.10, 2.52; P = .03; I2:77.3 %). Conversely, Ta-RR was associated with a significantly lower number of lymph nodes harvested compared with all other approaches. SUCRA plots revealed that Ta-RR had the highest probability of being the best approach to achieve a complete mesorectal excision and negative CRM, followed by R-RR, which ranked the best in lymph nodes retrieved.

CONCLUSION

When comparing the effectiveness of the available surgical approaches for rectal cancer resection, Ta-RR and R-RR are associated with better histopathological outcomes than L-RR.

Short- and long-term impact of the TaTME learning process: a single institutional study

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a promising and innovative approach for lower rectal cancer but requires high technical skill and learning process that can affect patient outcomes. We aimed to determine the learning curve of TaTME and then to assess its impact on 5-year oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Over a 54-month period, 94 patients underwent TaTME by experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeons at our department. To provide a comprehensive overview of success, we used a composite criterion including the most relevant parameters related to the learning process: the conversion rate to an open procedure, TaTME procedure completion, severe postoperative morbidity, mesorectal integrity on macroscopic evaluation, and microscopic margins. Moving average method and cumulative sum analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The operative time continuously decreased over the entire study period. The success rate stabilised after 14 patients in a parallel and balanced analysis of the two surgeons' experiences. Mesorectal completeness was the most sensitive marker for the TaTME learning process (42.9% vs 71.25%; p = 0.06). The learning process did not significantly affect the postoperative morbidity, conversion rate, or R0 resection. Five-year oncological outcomes were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Even among laparoscopically experienced surgeons, the TaTME learning process influences the oncological quality of the resection but not the postoperative morbidity. Gaining an early command of the surgical anatomy and technical skills and understanding the challenges through specific educational sessions are necessary. The results of this study could help generate a comprehensive training program and define necessary prerequisites for prospective trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered in our Clinical Research Unit (2016_LELONG_01). Our database is registered in the clinicalTrials.gov registry: Institut Paoli Calmettes Colorectal Cancer Database (NCT02869503).

Intersphinktäre Resektion zum Schließmuskelerhalt beim ultratiefen Rektumkarzinom – Ein Update

Die Indikation zum Sphinktererhalt bei Patienten mit einem sehr tief sitzenden Rektumkarzinom ist in vielerlei Hinsicht eine Herausforderung und auch an die Beherrschung der intersphinktären Resektion gebunden. In dieser Arbeit sollen die zunehmend definierten Operationstechniken kurz vorgestellt und aktuell eingeordnet werden.

Essential updates 2022-2023: Surgical and adjuvant therapies for locally advanced colorectal cancer

Pivotal articles that had been published between 2022 and 2023 on surgical and perioperative adjuvant treatments for locally advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) were reviewed. This review focuses on new evidence in the following areas: optimization of surgical procedures for colon cancer, including the optimal length of bowel resection and use of the no-touch isolation technique; minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer, such as laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision and robotic surgery; neoadjuvant treatments for rectal cancer, including total neoadjuvant therapy; neoadjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer; and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for Stage II and III colon cancer. Although the current understanding may not enable perfect decision-making for patients and medical professionals, ongoing advancements are expected to result in more effective personalized treatment plans, ultimately improving the prognosis and quality of life of patients.

Improving the local excision strategy for rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy: Surgical and oncological results

INTRODUCTION

Local excision (LE) for good responders after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is oncologically safe. Although the GRECCAR 2 trial did not demonstrate any advantages in morbidity, it provided useful information for optimising patient selection. This study assessed the impact of these results on our practice by focusing on the evolution of our selection criteria and management modalities for these patients over 10 years.

METHODS

Data were collected using our retrospective database of 110 patients who underwent LE after CRT for low and middle rectal cancer between 2010 and 2022 before (Group 1) and after (Group 2) consideration of the GRECCAR 2 trial results.

RESULTS

The pretherapeutic selection criteria remained stable after the GRECCAR 2 trial, although in Group 2, completion total mesorectal excision (TME) for ypT2 tumours with favourable tumour regression grade was abandoned, improving the organ preservation rate at 1 year from 63.3 % to 91.8 % (p < 0.01). The operative time and length of stay after LE were reduced by half in Group 2 (p < 0.01). The intention-to-treat rate for severe morbidity was also halved, but was not significant (8.2 % vs. 16.3 %, p = 0.24). Among patients with a 3-year follow-up data, disease-free survival was comparable between Group 1 (89.8 %) and Group 2 (85.4 %) (p = 0.51) with one locoregional recurrence in each group (2.0 % vs. 2.1 %, p = 1).

CONCLUSION

LE is a safe and effective strategy when performed in a "high-volume" centre. Improved methods for assessing tumour response and the selection criteria for completion TME enhanced surgical outcomes without compromising oncological outcomes.

Transanal intersphincteric under direct view in the jackknife position combined with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for treating ultra-low rectal cancer

Aim

To investigate the effect and clinical advantage of transanal intersphincteric (ISR) under direct view in the jackknife position combined with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for treating ultra-low rectal cancer. Additionally, the feasibility of this surgical technique was evaluated.

Method

This was a retrospective, single-center, single-arm pilot study. Ten patients with ultra-low rectal cancer underwent treatment by the same surgical team for direct view transanal ISR combined with laparoscopic TME in the Department of Anorectal Surgery, Huizhou Central People's Hospital between January 2021 and June 2021. The relevant clinical data were collected and analyzed.

Results

All the patients underwent complete mesenteric resection without conversion to laparotomy. The circumferential and distal resection margins (CRM and DRM) were negative. The mean distance between the lower margin of the tumor and the anal margin was 2.8 ± 0.8 cm, and the mean margin of distal resection was 1.2 ± 0.2 cm. TNM pathological stages I, II, III, and IV were observed in 6, 2, 2, and 0 cases, respectively. The median follow-up period was 15 months (interquartile range, 8 months). The mean Wexner and Low Anterior Resection Syndrome scores at 12 months after ileostomy were 8.1 ± 2.1 and 22.4 ± 5.7, respectively.

Conclusion

Transanal ISR under direct view in the jackknife position combined with laparoscopic TME is safe and feasible for the treatment of ultralow rectal cancer.

Robotic, transanal, and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for locally advanced mid/low rectal cancer: European multicentre, propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgery for low/mid locally advanced rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare three minimally invasive surgical approaches for TME with primary anastomosis (laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, and transanal TME).

METHODS

Records of patients undergoing laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, or transanal TME between 2013 and 2022 according to standardized techniques in expert centres contributing to the European MRI and Rectal Cancer Surgery III (EuMaRCS-III) database were analysed. Propensity score matching was applied to compare the three groups with respect to the complication rate (primary outcome), conversion rate, postoperative recovery, and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 468 patients (mean(s.d.) age of 64.1(11) years) were included; 190 (40.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic TME, 141 (30.1%) patients underwent robotic TME, and 137 (29.3%) patients underwent transanal TME. Comparative analyses after propensity score matching demonstrated a higher rate of postoperative complications for laparoscopic TME compared with both robotic TME (OR 1.80, 95% c.i. 1.11-2.91) and transanal TME (OR 2.87, 95% c.i. 1.72-4.80). Robotic TME was associated with a lower rate of grade A anastomotic leakage (2%) compared with both laparoscopic TME (8.8%) and transanal TME (8.1%) (P = 0.031). Robotic TME (1.4%) and transanal TME (0.7%) were both associated with a lower conversion rate to open surgery compared with laparoscopic TME (8.8%) (P < 0.001). Time to flatus and duration of hospital stay were shorter for patients treated with transanal TME (P = 0.003 and 0.001 respectively). There were no differences in operating time, intraoperative complications, blood loss, mortality, readmission, R0 resection, or survival.

CONCLUSION

In this multicentre, retrospective, propensity score-matched, cohort study of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, newer minimally invasive approaches (robotic TME and transanal TME) demonstrated improved outcomes compared with laparoscopic TME.

Long-term oncological outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer: a retrospective analysis of 2502 patients

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal resection (taTME) has recently emerged as a promising surgical approach for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer. However, there is limited evidence on the long-term survival outcomes associated with taTME. This retrospective study aimed to compare the overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cancer-specific survival of taTME and laparoscopic TME (laTME) in patients with mid-low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From July 2014 to June 2022, a total of 3627 patients were identified from two prospective cohorts: the laparoscopic rectal surgery cohort and the CNTAES cohort. To balance the baseline characteristics between the taTME and laTME groups, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 2502 patients were included in the study. Prior to PSM, the laTME group comprised 1853 patients, while the taTME group comprised 649 patients. The 5-year OS (82.9% vs. 80.4%, P =0.202) and 5-year DFS (74.4% vs. 72.5%, P =0.167) were comparable between the taTME and laTME groups. After PSM, the taTME group showed no statistically significant difference in the 5-year OS (83.1% vs. 79.2%, P =0.101) and 5-year DFS (74.8% vs. 72.1%, P =0.135) compared to the laTME group. Subgroup analysis further suggested that taTME may potentially reduce the risk of death [hazard ratio 0.652; (95% CI, 0.452-0.939)] and disease recurrence [hazard ratio 0.736; (95% CI, 0.562-0.965)] specifically in patients with low rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

In this study, taTME demonstrated comparable oncologic safety to laTME in patients with mid-low rectal cancer. Moreover, the results indicate that taTME may confer potential survival benefits for patients with low rectal cancer.

Exfoliate cancer cell analysis in rectal cancer surgery: comparison of laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision, a pilot study

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is currently the standard treatment for rectal cancer. However, its limitations include complications and incomplete total mesorectal resection (TME) due to anatomical features and technical difficulties. Transanal TME (TaTME) has been practiced since 2010 to improve this, but there is a risk of local recurrence and intra-abdominal contamination. We aimed to analyze samples obtained through lavage to compare laparoscopic TME (LapTME) and TaTME.

METHODS

From June 2020 to January 2021, 20 patients with rectal cancer undergoing MIS were consecutively and prospectively recruited. Samples were collected at the start of surgery, immediately after TME, and after irrigation. The samples were analyzed for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cytokeratin 20 (CK20) through a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. The primary outcome was to compare the detected amounts of CEA and CK20 immediately after TME between the surgical methods.

RESULTS

Among the 20 patients, 13 underwent LapTME and 7 underwent TaTME. Tumor location was lower in TaTME (7.3 cm vs. 4.6 cm, P=0.012), and negative mesorectal fascia (MRF) was more in LapTME (76.9% vs. 28.6%, P=0.044). CEA and CK20 levels were high in 3 patients (42.9%) only in TaTME. There was 1 case of T4 with incomplete purse-string suture and 1 case of positive MRF with dissection failure. All patients were followed up for an average of 32.5 months without local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

CEA and CK20 levels were high only in TaTME and were related to tumor factors or intraoperative events. However, whether the detection amount is clinically related to local recurrence remains unclear.

Impact of trans-anal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision on the surgical and pathologic outcomes of patients with rectal cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite its profound impact on the oncologic outcomes of rectal cancer, the most optimal surgical approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) has not been identified yet. All previous meta-analyses on this subject have been based on observational studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic TME (LaTME) compared to trans-anal TME (TaTME), utilizing only randomized controlled trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltials.gov) from 2010 onwards, for all published clinical trials comparing TaTME to LaTME. Results are presented as risk ratios, with 95% CI, and pooled using the random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 1691 patients, from 6 eligible randomized controlled trials, were included for analysis. Analyzed data showed no significant difference in morbidity (RR: 0.85, p = 0.15), mortality (RR: 0.50, p = 0.44), conversion to open (RR: 0.40, p = 0.07), or anastomotic leakage (RR: 0.73, p = 0.10) between TaTME and LaTME. There was also no difference in the rate of positive distal resection margin (DRM) (RR: 0.55, p = 0.10) or positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR: 0.67, p = 0.30). Patients undergoing TaTME were more likely to have a complete TME (RR: 1.06, p = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays (RR: - 0.97, p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing TaTME for rectal cancer were more likely to have a complete TME when compared to LaTME, though this did not translate into improved distal or circumferential resection margin. Additionally, TaTME and LaTME had similar surgical outcomes except for shorter length of stay with TaTME.

Reducing anastomotic leakage in TaTME by mucosal coverage of staple lines: a pilot study with preliminary results

PURPOSE

We have performed a single stapled anastomosis with double purse-string sutures as a Trans anal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) reconstruction for low rectal cancer. We report an attempt to control local infection and reduce anastomotic leakage (AL) at this anastomotic site.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-one patients who underwent TaTME for low rectal cancer from April 2021 to October 2022 were included. TaTME was performed by two teams, and reconstruction was performed by anastomosis with a single stapling technique (SST). After the anastomosis was thoroughly cleaned, Z sutures were placed parallel to the staple line to suture the mucosa on the oral and anal side of the staple line and to cover the staple line circumferentially. Data on operative time, Distal Margin (DM), recurrence and postoperative complications including AL were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 67 years. There were 36 males and 15 females. The overall mean operative time was 283.1 min, and the mean Distal Margin was 2.2 cm. Postoperative complications were observed in 5.9% of the patients, but no AL was observed, nor any serious complications with Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 grade. Of the 49 cases excluding Stage 4, postoperative recurrence was observed in 2 cases (4.9%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with lower rectal cancer who underwent TaTME, additional mucosal coverage of the anastomotic staple line by transanal manipulation after reconstruction may be associated with a reduction in the incidence of postoperative AL. Further studies including late anastomotic complications are needed.

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.

Essential updates 2020/2021: Advancing precision medicine for comprehensive rectal cancer treatment

In the paradigm shift related to rectal cancer treatment, we have to understand a variety of new emerging topics to provide appropriate treatment for individual patients as precision medicine. However, information on surgery, genomic medicine, and pharmacotherapy is highly specialized and subdivided, creating a barrier to achieving thorough knowledge. In this review, we summarize the perspective for rectal cancer treatment and management from the current standard-of-care to the latest findings to help optimize treatment strategy.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

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 assessment for non-reversal stoma and stoma re-creation after reversal surgery for rectal cancer patients after sphincter-saving operation

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify the risk factors for permanent stoma (PS) in patients who underwent sphincter-saving operations for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 597 consecutive patients with rectal cancer from January 2012 to December 2020 at Taipei Medical University Hospital. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to analyze risk factors for PS.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 47.3 months (range 7-114 months), 59 patients (15.1%) were alive with a PS, including 46 patients who did not undergo reversal surgery and 13 patients who underwent stoma re-creation after reversal surgery. The mean period between primary surgery and stoma reversal was 6.0 months. Multivariate analysis revealed that the risk factors for PS were local recurrence [odd ratio (OR), 25.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.428-147.761; p < 0.001], perirectal abscess [OR, 154.34; 95% CI, 15.806 - >999; p < 0.001], anastomosis site stenosis [OR, 187.081; 95% CI, 22.193 - >999; p < 0.001], perineural invasion [OR, 4.782; 95% CI, 1.22-18.736; p = 0.025], and operation time (min) [OR, 1.008; 95% CI, 1.002-1.014; p = 0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

Local recurrence, perirectal abscess, anastomosis site stenosis, perineural invasion, and operation time were independent risk factors for PS. Therefore, before a patient undergoes surgery for rectal cancer, surgeons should consider the possibility of the need for a PS, and patients should be informed before the operation that closure of the temporary stoma may not always be possible.

Nomogram to predict permanent stoma in rectal cancer patients after sphincter-saving surgery

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20 percent of patients with a tumour localized in the low rectum still encounter the possibility of requiring permanent stoma (PS), which can cause drastic changes in lifestyle and physical perceptions.

AIM

To determine the risk factors for PS and to develop a prediction model to predict the probability of PS in rectal cancer patients after sphincter-saving surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 421 rectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery at Taipei Medical University Hospital between January 2012 and December 2020 was included in this study. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the independent risk factors for PS. A nomogram was developed according to the independent risk factors obtained in the multivariate analysis. The performance of the nomogram was assessed using a receiver operating characteristic curve and a calibration curve.

RESULTS

The PS rate after sphincter-saving surgery was 15.1% (59/391) in our study after a median follow-up of 47.3 mo (range 7–114 mo). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that local recurrence, perirectal abscess, anastomosis site stenosis, perineural invasion, tumor size and operative time were independent risk factors for PS. These identified risk factors were incorporated into the nomogram, and the concordance index of this model was 0.903 (95%CI: 0.851-0.955). According to the calibration curves, the nomogram represents a perfect prediction model.

CONCLUSION

Several risk factors for PS after sphincter-saving surgery were identified. Our nomogram exhibited perfect predictive ability and will improve a physician’s ability to communicate the benefits and risks of various treatment options in shared decision making.

S184: preoperative sarcopenia is associated with worse short-term outcomes following transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Malnutrition and deconditioning impact postoperative morbidity and mortality. Computed tomography (CT) body composition variables are used as markers of nutritional status and sarcopenia. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of sarcopenia, using CT variables, on postoperative outcomes following transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This was an institutional retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent TaTME between April 2014 and May 2020. Psoas muscle index (PMI) was calculated from diagnostic CT scans. Based on previous studies, patients in the lowest PMI tertile by gender were considered sarcopenic. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Readmission rates and postoperative complications were compared between groups. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to determine the association between sarcopenia and 30-day postoperative complications.

RESULTS

85 patients were analyzed, of which 63% were male, with a median age of 59 (IQR: 51-65), and median BMI of 28 (IQR: 24-32). Of the entire cohort, 34% (n = 29) were sarcopenic (median PMI 5.39 IQR: 4.49-6.71). No significant difference in baseline characteristics between sarcopenic and nonsarcopenic patients were observed. 55% of sarcopenic patients experienced a complication within 30 days compared to 24% of nonsarcopenic patients (p = 0.01). 41% of sarcopenic patients required hospital readmission within 30 days compared to 17% of their nonsarcopenic counterparts (p = 0.014). Sarcopenic patients also experienced significantly higher rates of post-operative small bowel obstruction (10% vs. 0%, p = 0.04). Multivariable analyses identified that sarcopenic patients have a fourfold increase in odds of experiencing a 30-day postoperative complication (OR: 4.44, 95%CI: 1.6-12.4, p < 0.05) after adjusting for gender.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative sarcopenia is associated with increased 30-day postoperative complications following TaTME for rectal cancer. Postoperative complications can have serious oncologic implications by delaying adjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, preoperative recognition of sarcopenia prior to undergoing TaTME for rectal cancer may provide an opportunity for early intervention with prehabilitation programs.

Pathologic outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 26 studies

PURPOSE

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has the potential advantages for patients with low rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to identify the pathologic outcomes between the TaTME and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) in rectal cancer.

METHODS

The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE with English language restriction. The primary endpoint was circumferential margin (CRM), and the secondary endpoints were distal resection margin (DRM), mesorectal excision quality, and harvested lymph nodes.

RESULTS

Our research identified 1090 articles, and 26 studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The positive CRM was lower in the TaTME than the LaTME (OR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.98; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the positive CRM between the TaTME and LaTME published after 2016 (OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.12; P = 0.19), prospective study (OR = 2.70; 95% CI = 0.51, 14.24; P = 0.24), respective study (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.55, 1.04; P = 0.09), BMI > 26 (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.63, 1.58; P = 0.98), or sample size > 100 (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.23; P = 0.38). In addition, there was no significant difference observed between the TaTME and LaTME in terms of DRM, mesorectum incompleteness, and harvested lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

The TaTME is associated with lower positive CRM compared to the LaTME and similar pathologic outcomes including DRM, harvested lymph node, and mesorectal excision quality.

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.

Robotic colorectal surgery using the Senhance® robotic system: a single center experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the initial experience of a single robotic center with the Senhance^® robotic systems (TransEnterix Surgical Inc, Morrisville, NC, USA) in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent colorectal surgery using the Senhance^® robotic systems, from November 2018 to November 2020. Perioperative, intraoperative, and short-term postoperative data were assessed.

RESULTS

There were 57 patients (28 women and 29 men, mean age 61.7 ± 6.2 years [range 23-84 years]). Forty-eight (84.2%) patients underwent surgery for colorectal cancer (22 colon cancer and 26 rectal cancer) and 9 (15.8%) for benign conditions. Mean operating time was 194 min ± 57.8 min (range 90-380 min). In total, 27(47.4%) operations were performed on the colon and 30 (52.6%) on the rectum; mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 8 ± 6.2 days (range 3-48 days). There were 2 (3.4%) conversions to open surgery. No intraoperative complications occurred. Seven patients (12.3%) had postoperative complications 3 (5.3%) of whom had to be treated under general anesthesia. There was no mortality. In 48 patients operated on for colorectal cancer, the mean lymph-node harvest was 18 ± 7.9 (range 7-38 lymph nodes). In the rectal cancer group of 26 patients, the distal resection margin was 3.3 ± 1.8 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, surgery using the new Senhance^® robotic system was safe and feasible in surgery of the colon and rectum. Randomized controlled trials comparing this type of colorectal surgery with laparoscopic and/or other types of robotic surgery are needed.

New Frontiers in Management of Early and Advanced Rectal Cancer

It is important to understand advances in treatment options for rectal cancer. We attempt to highlight advances in rectal cancer treatment in the form of a systematic review. Early-stage rectal cancer focuses on minimally invasive endoluminal surgery, with importance placed on patient selection as the driving factor for improved outcomes. To achieve a complete pathologic response, various neoadjuvant chemoradiation regimens have been employed. Short-course radiation therapy, total neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and others provide unique advantages with select patient populations best suited for each. With a clinical complete response, a "watch and wait" non-operative surveillance has been introduced with preliminary equivalency to radical resection. Various modalities for total mesorectal excision, such as robotic or transanal, have advantages and can be utilized in select patient populations. Tumors demonstrating solid organ or peritoneal spread, traditionally defined as unresectable lesions conveying a terminal diagnosis, have recently undergone advances in hepatic and pulmonary metastasectomy. Hepatic and pulmonary metastasectomy has demonstrated clear advantages in 5-year survival over standard chemotherapy. With the peritoneal spread of colorectal cancer, HIPEC with cytoreductive therapy has emerged as the preferred treatment. Understanding the various therapeutic interventions will pave the way for improved patient outcomes.

Anastomosis-Related Complications After Stapled Anastomosis With Reinforced Sutures in Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

The International Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Registry group showed that transanal total mesorectal excision included clinical issues regarding anastomosis-related complications.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated anastomotic complications in patients whose anastomoses were created with the stapler plus reinforced sutures procedure after transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective single-center study.

SETTING

The study was conducted at the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan.

PATIENTS

Between June 2016 and December 2019, 150 patients underwent transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer. Stapled anastomosis was performed for 55 patients, and coloanal handsewn anastomosis was performed for 95 patients. Blood perfusion of the colon was routinely evaluated with intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence angiography. All patients who underwent stapled anastomosis received additional handsewn sutures on all rounds of the stapled line. Patients who underwent intersphincteric resection were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The anastomosis-related complications were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Early anastomotic leakage was found in one (1.8%) and eight (8.4%) patients in the stapled group and handsewn group. Overall anastomosis-related complications, pelvic abscess, and anastomotic stenosis were significantly less frequent in the stapled group (p < 0.001, p < 0.048, and p < 0.032). Incomplete donuts after the stapled anastomosis were observed in 9 patients (16.4%); however, we reinforced all around the stapled line in these patients, and this reduced the subsequent occurrence of anastomotic leakage.

LIMITATIONS

First, this was a retrospective single-center study that was not randomized or controlled. Second, there were chronological differences regarding the anastomotic method between the two groups. Third, our study included a relatively small number of patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Stapled anastomosis with reinforced handsewn sutures resulted in fewer anastomosis-related complications than did coloanal handsewn anastomosis after transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer; thus, the former may be superior and should be the preferred method, when technically possible. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B749.COMPLICACIONES RELACIONADAS CON LAS ANASTOMOSIS ENGRAMPADAS Y REFORZADAS CON SUTURAS EN LA EXCISIÓN TOTAL DEL MESORRECTO POR VÍA TRANSANAL EN CASOS DE CÁNCER DE RECTO BAJO: ESTUDIO RETROSPECTIVO UNICÉNTRICO.

ANTECEDENTES

El grupo del Registro Internacional de Excisión Total del Mesorrecto por vía Transanal mostró que la excisión total mesorrectal transanal incluía problemas clínicos relacionados a las complicaciones involucradas con la anastomosis.

OBJETIVO

Se evaluaron las complicaciones anastomóticas en pacientes cuyas anastomosis se realizaron con engrampadora reforzada de suturas después de la excisión total de l mesorrecto por vía transanal en casos de cáncer de recto bajo.

DISEO

Estudio retrospectivo unicéntrico.

AJUSTE

El Hospital del Centro Nacional del Cáncer del Este, Japón.

PACIENTES

Entre junio de 2016 y diciembre de 2019, 150 pacientes se sometieron a excisión total del mesorrecto por vía transanal en casos de cáncer de recto bajo. Se realizó anastomosis con engrampadora en 55 y anastomosis coloanal suturada a mano en 95 pacientes. La perfusión tisular sanguínea del colon operado se evaluó de forma rutinaria con angiografía de fluorescencia con verde de indocianina intraoperatoria. Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a anastomosis con grapas recibieron suturas realizadas a mano adicionales sobre la totalidad de la línea de grapas. Se excluyeron los pacientes sometidos a resección interesfintérica.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO

Las complicaciones relacionadas con la anastomosis se compararon entre los grupos.

RESULTADOS

Se encontró fuga anastomótica temprana en 1 (1.8%) y 8 (8.4%) pacientes en el grupo de engrampado y en el grupo suturado a mano, respectivamente. En general, las complicaciones relacionadas con la anastomosis, el absceso pélvico y la estenosis anastomótica fueron significativamente menos frecuentes en el grupo con grapas (p < 0.001, p < 0.048, p < 0.032, respectivamente). Se observaron donas incompletas después de la anastomosis grapada en 9 pacientes (16,4%); sin embargo, reforzamos todo alrededor de la línea de grapas en estos pacientes, y esto redujo la aparición posterior de fugas anastomóticas.

LIMITACIONES

Inicialmente, este fue un estudio retrospectivo de un solo centro que no fue aleatorizado ni controlado. En segundo lugar, hubo diferencias cronológicas con respecto al método anastomótico entre los dos grupos. En tercer lugar, nuestro estudio incluyó un número relativamente pequeño de pacientes que recibieron quimiorradioterapia preoperatoria.

CONCLUSIONES

La anastomosis engrapada reforzada con suturas realizadas a mano dio como resultado menos complicaciones relacionadas con la anastomosis que la anastomosis coloanal suturada a mano después de la excisión total del mesorrecto por vía transanal en casos de cáncer de recto bajo; por tanto, el primero puede ser superior y debería ser el método preferido, cuando sea técnicamente posible. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B749. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

Nomogram for Predicting the Probability of Permanent Stoma after Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for the development of a permanent stoma in laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (LS-ISR) for ultralow rectal adenocarcinoma and to develop and validate a prediction model to predict the probability of permanent stoma after surgery.

METHODS

A primary cohort consisting of 301 consecutive patients who underwent LS-ISR was enrolled in this study. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors and develop the nomogram. The performance of the nomogram was assessed with respect to its calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness. An independent validation cohort contained 91 consecutive patients from January 2012 to January 2019.

RESULTS

The permanent stoma rate was 11.3% (34/301) in the primary cohort and 18.7% (17/91) in the validation cohort. Multivariable analysis revealed that nCRT (OR, 3.195; 95% CI, 1.169-8.733; P=0.024), ASA score of 3 (OR, 5.062; 95% CI, 1.877-13.646; P=0.001), distant metastasis (OR, 14.645; 95% CI, 3.186-67.315; P=0.001), and anastomotic leakage (OR, 11.308; 95% CI, 3.650-35.035; P<0.001) were independent risk factors for permanent stoma, and a nomogram was established. The AUCs of the nomogram were 0.842 and 0.858 in the primary and validation cohorts, respectively. The calibration curves showed good calibration in both cohorts. Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the nomogram was clinically useful.

CONCLUSION

We developed and validated a nomogram for ultralow rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent LS-ISR, and the nomogram could help surgeons identify which patients are at a higher risk of a permanent stoma after surgery.

Transanal total mesorectal excision and transabdominal robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Transabdominal robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are newly introduced strategies for rectal cancer. These procedures might have many advantages in rectal cancer treatment in terms of improving oncological and functional outcomes, especially in cases involving advanced cancer or technical difficulty. In the present study, we aimed to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of transabdominal robotic surgery and laparoscopic TaTME as a hybrid surgery for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated six patients who underwent hybrid surgery for rectal cancer from August 2018 to April 2020. Both clinical and pathological outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Two patients showed circumferential margin involvement both before and after neoadjuvant therapy. Three patients were planned to undergo hybrid surgery with intersphincteric resection because of a narrow pelvis. One patient was planned to undergo hybrid surgery for a giant tumor of >10 cm. The median length of hospitalization was 17 days. No patients required conversion to an open procedure. All patients underwent formation of defunctioning ileostomies. Two patients had a stapled anastomosis and four had a hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Complications included one case of anastomotic leakage, which was managed conservatively with ultrasound- and computed tomography-guided drainage and antibiotics. Histological analysis revealed that all specimens had a negative radial margin and distal margin. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 17.5. Two patients showed extensive lymph node metastases, including lateral node metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid surgery was performed safely and may improve oncological outcomes for rectal cancer. This technique has many potential benefits and would be alternative option in multimodal strategies for rectal cancer.

Robotic rectal resection preserves anorectal function: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Improving survival rates in rectal cancer patients has generated a growing interest in functional outcomes after total mesorectal excision (TME). The well-established low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score assesses postoperative anorectal impairment after TME. Our meta-analysis is the first to compare bowel function after open, laparoscopic, transanal, and robotic TME.

METHODS

All studies reporting functional outcomes after rectal cancer surgery (LARS score) were included, and were compared with a consecutive series of robotic TME (n = 48).

RESULTS

Thirty-two publications were identified, including 5 565 patients. Anorectal function recovered significantly better within one year after robotic TME (3.8 [95%CI -9.709-17.309]) versus laparoscopic TME (26.4 [95%CI 19.524-33.286]), p = 0.006), open TME (26.0 [95%CI 24.338-29.702], p = 0.002) and transanal TME (27.9 [95%CI 22.127-33.669], p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic TME enables better recovery of anorectal function compared to other techniques. Further prospective, high-quality studies are needed to confirm the benefits of robotic surgery.

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.

Combined Laparoscopic and Transperineal Endoscopic Pelvic Tumor Resection with Sacrectomy for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

Pelvic tumor resection with sacrectomy for locally recurrent rectal cancer is a challenging operation with a high complication rate and poor prognosis. We report a case of pelvic tumor resection with sacrectomy by transperineal endoscopy following laparoscopic dissection for locally recurrent rectal cancer. A 70-year-old man underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer and was diagnosed with local pelvic recurrence on follow-up computed tomography (CT) three years postoperatively. As the recurrence was in contact with the front of the sacrum, we concluded that distal sacrectomy was necessary to ensure a surgical margin. We safely performed combined laparoscopic and transperineal endoscopic pelvic tumor resection with sacrectomy by exposing the surface of the sacrum from both abdominal and transperineal approach. The operative time was 200 minutes, with minimal blood loss. There was no tumor exposure on the surgically dissected surface, and the patient was discharged without complications 14 days postoperatively. Transperineal endoscopy may be useful for pelvic tumor resection with sacrectomy for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

Two-Year Follow-Up of the First Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) Case Performed in Community Hospital in Hawai'i: A Case Report and Literature Review

Surgical management of rectal cancer has evolved with the advent of total mesorectal excision (TME) and neo-adjuvant treatment allowing for more sphincter-preserving proctectomies. The laparoscopic approach to TME has numerous advantages over the open approach, including faster recovery, fewer wound complications, and overall reduced morbidity. However, laparoscopic dissection around the distal portion of the rectum is particularly difficult, and thus makes achieving TME completeness and negative resection margins for low rectal tumors a challenge. Transanal TME (TaTME) is designed to overcome these difficulties. It is performed in addition to laparoscopic operation as a bottom-up approach facilitating dissection around the distal rectum. More importantly, TaTME has been shown to have the potential to improve oncological outcomes of minimally-invasive sphincter-preserving proctectomy by providing better TME specimen quality and resection margins. Although interest in TaTME has been growing worldwide, the technique is still relatively new, and adoption into routine practice may be challenging. Potential criteria for successful adoption of the TaTME technique include experience in laparoscopic rectal resection and transanal minimally-invasive surgery (TAMIS), cadaveric TaTME training, and a multidisciplinary approach to selection and management of patients with rectal cancer. Once these criteria are met, gradual and careful implementation of TaTME could be feasible. This report describes the 2-year follow-up of the first TaTME case in Hawai'i managed by a multidisciplinary oncological team in a community hospital setting.

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.

Single-docking robotic assisted proctectomy for rectal cancer below peritoneal reflection: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of robotic assisted proctectomy (RP) and laparoscopic assisted proctectomy (LP) for rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Methods

We evaluated the medical records of 200 patients who underwent proctectomy for rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection through a robotic (n=81) or laparoscopic (n=119) approach between Jan 2015 and Dec 2017. The data were prospectively collected, and the patients were matched at a ratio of 1:1 according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), previous abdominal surgeries, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (≤2/>2), and pathologic stage.

Results

After matching, each group included 74 patients. Compared to the LP group, the RP group showed shorter postoperative hospital stays (PHS) [7 (±2) vs. 9 (±2.3) d, P=0.003], shorter time to liquid diet [3 (±2) vs. 5 (±3) d, P<0.001], and shorter time to removal of catheter [6 (±2) vs. 7 (±2.3) d, p=0.014]. The operative expense was higher in the RP group [8,365 (±1,600) vs. 6,922 (±1,220) RMB, P<0.001]. The operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, and pathologic outcomes were similar between the two groups. No conversion to laparotomy, readmission, or mortality was observed in either group within 30 days after surgery. The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) were 75.2% and 88.3% (P=0.070), and overall survival (OS) were 92.9% and 93.7% (P=0.810) in the RP and the LP groups, respectively and the risk of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) was lower in the RP group (OR =0.304, 95% CI: 0.124–0.745, P=0.009).

Conclusions

Compared to LP, RP is worth recommending as it has long-term survival, faster postoperative recovery, and a lower risk of LARS in patients with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection.

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.

A case of carbon dioxide embolism during the transperineal approach in total pelvic exenteration for advanced anorectal cancer

The transanal and transperineal endoscopic approaches are useful advanced surgical options for removing rectal and anorectal cancers. Intraoperative carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) embolisms, however, have been increasingly reported as potentially fatal complications associated with surgery employing these approaches. We report our experience with a CO₂ embolism that was detected because of a sudden drop in end-tidal CO₂ with decreasing saturation of percutaneous arterial oxygen during total pelvic exenteration using the transperineal endoscopic approach under pneumopelvis/pneumoperitoneum. Transesophageal echocardiography confirmed that it was a CO₂ embolus. We reversed the pneumopelvis and pneumoperitoneum, which alleviated the cardiopulmonary problems, and the surgery then proceeded to achieve R0 resection. The patient was discharged without severe complications other than the CO₂ embolism.

Trans-anal total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancers: Preliminary oncological results of a comparative study

OBJECTIVE

The management of lower rectal cancers is a therapeutic challenge both from the oncological and functional viewpoints. The aim of this study is to assess the oncological results and postoperative morbidity after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for low rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this monocentric retrospective study, we compared the quality of carcinologic resection and the morbidity-mortality between a group of 20 patients undergoing TaTME and 21 patients treated by abdomino-perineal resection (APR) between 2016 to 2019.

RESULTS

More patients had a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (≤1mm) in the APR group (47.6% vs. 5%; P<0.0036). The difference in the rates of grades I-II and III-IV complications (Clavien-Dindo classification) between the two groups was not statistically significant (50% vs. 57.1% and 5% vs. 9.5% in TaTME and APR, respectively; P=0.7579, P=1.00). The median follow-up was longer in the TaTME group (20 months vs. 11 months; P=0.58). The local recurrence rate did not differ between the two groups (5% vs. 4.8%; P=1.00) CONCLUSION: TaTME provides a reliable total mesorectal resection with an acceptable CRM. However, like any new technique, it requires experience and the learning curve is long.

Early Experience With Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Compared With Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is widely used for rectal cancers; however, it is sometimes challenging, especially in obese patients with low tumors, particularly after chemoradiotherapy. Transanal total mesorectal excision was developed to overcome these limitations in terms of visualization, dissection, and stapling.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the pathologic and early oncologic outcomes of the laparoscopic and transanal approaches.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective comparative study using propensity score-matched analysis.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a tertiary hospital specializing in oncology.

PATIENTS

In total, 722 inpatients who underwent total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer from January 2014 to December 2017 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopic (N = 514) and transanal (N = 208) total mesorectal excision were performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was pathologic outcome including circumferential and distal resection margin involvement. The secondary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications and overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and local recurrence rates.

RESULTS

The 2 groups of the cohort had several differences; thus, we performed propensity score matching. The circumferential resection margin was involved in 13.4% and 12.9% of the laparoscopic and transanal groups (p = 0.88). The distal resection margin was involved in 1% and 3% of the laparoscopic and transanal groups (p = 0.28). Complete or nearly complete total mesorectal excision was 98.0% and 96.5% in the laparoscopic and transanal groups (p = 0.41). Postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.54) but were significantly higher in patients with tumors <5 cm from the anal verge who underwent laparoscopy (laparoscopic group = 11.9%; transanal group = 1.7%; p = 0.04). There were no statistical differences in the 3-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival, or local recurrence rates between groups.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study design with a short follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Early experience with the transanal approach showed similar pathologic outcomes as those of conventional laparoscopy; hence, it should be considered as a surgical option for lower rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B352. EXPERIENCIA TEMPRANA CON LA ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL TRANSANAL EN COMPARACIÓN CON LA ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UN ANÁLISIS DE PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN: La escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica se usa ampliamente para los cánceres rectales; Sin embargo, a veces es un desafío, especialmente en pacientes obesos con tumores bajos, particularmente después de la quimiorradioterapia. La escisión mesorrectal total transanal se desarrolló para superar estas limitaciones en términos de visualización, disección y grapado.Comparar los resultados patológicos y oncológicos precoces de los enfoques laparoscópico y transanal.estudio comparativo retrospectivo con puntaje de propensión-análisis emparejadoHospital terciario especializado en oncología.En total, se incluyeron 722 pacientes hospitalizados que se sometieron a una escisión mesorrectal total por cáncer rectal desde Enero de 2014 hasta Diciembre de 2017.Se realizó escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica (n = 514) y transanal (n = 208).El resultado primario fue el resultado patológico, incluyendo el involucramiento del margen de resección circunferencial y distal. Los resultados secundarios fueron complicaciones intraoperatorias, postoperatorias y supervivencia general, supervivencia libre de recurrencia y tasas de recurrencia local.Los dos grupos de la cohorte tuvieron varias diferencias; así, realizamos un emparejamiento de puntuación de propensión. El margen de resección circunferencial estuvo involucrado en 13.4% y 12.9% de los grupos laparoscópico y transanal, respectivamente (p = 0.88). El margen de resección distal estuvo involucrado en 1% y 3% de los grupos laparoscópico y transanal, respectivamente (p = 0.28). La escisión mesorrectal total completa o casi completa fue de 98.0% y 96.5% en los grupos laparoscópico y transanal, respectivamente (p = 0.41). Las complicaciones postoperatorias con Clavien-Dindo grado ≥ III no difirieron significativamente entre los grupos (p = 0,54), pero fueron significativamente mayores en pacientes con tumores de < 5 cm del borde anal que se sometieron a laparoscopia (grupo laparoscópico, 11,9%; grupo transanal, 1,7%; p = 0,04). No hubo diferencias estadísticas en la supervivencia general a 3 años, la supervivencia libre de recurrencia y las tasas de recurrencia local entre los grupos.Diseño de estudio retrospectivo, corto período de seguimiento.La experiencia temprana con el enfoque transanal mostró resultados patológicos similares a los de la laparoscopia convencional; por lo tanto, debe considerarse como una opción quirúrgica para el cáncer rectal mas bajo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B352. (Traducción-Dr Yesenia Rojas-Khalil).

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: the risk is functional rather than oncological. A 25-year experience from Bordeaux

AIM

There are few data evaluating the long-term outcomes of intersphincteric resection (ISR), especially the impact of inclusion of more juxtapositioned and intra-anal tumours on oncological and functional outcomes. We compared the oncological and functional results of patients treated by total mesorectal excision and ISR for low rectal cancer over a 25-year period.

METHOD

This is a retrospective study from a single institution evaluating results of ISR over three periods: 1990-1998, 1999-2006 and 2007-2014. Patients treated by partial or total ISR, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for low rectal cancer (≤ 6 cm from the anal verge) were included. We compared postoperative morbidity, quality of surgery and oncological and functional outcomes in the time periods studied.

RESULTS

Of 813 patients operated on for low rectal cancer, 303 had ISR. Tumour stage did not differ; however, the distance of the tumour from the anorectal junction decreased from 1 to 0 cm (P < 0.001) and the distal resection margin shortened from 25 to 10 mm (P < 0.001) from 1990 to 2014. The postoperative morbidity and quality of surgery did not change significantly over time. The 5-year local recurrence (4.3% vs 5.9% vs 3.5%; P = 0.741) and disease-free survival (72% vs 71% vs 75%; P = 0.918) did not differ between the three time periods. Functional results improved during the last period; however, overall 42% of patients experienced major bowel dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Pushing the envelope of sphincter-saving resection in ultra-low rectal cancer reaching or invading the anal sphincter did not compromise oncological and functional outcomes. The main limitation of the ISR procedure appears to be functional rather than oncological, suggesting that bowel rehabilitation programmes should be developed.

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.

A Comprehensive Review of Randomized Clinical Trials Shaping the Landscape of Rectal Cancer Therapy

Colorectal carcinoma is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, with rectal cancer accounting for approximately one third of newly diagnosed cases. Surgery remains the cornerstone of curative therapy, with total mesorectal excision being the standard of care. Although minimally invasive procedures might be appropriate for a subset of patients with early-stage, superficial tumors, the standard of care for medically operable patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer includes a comprehensive multimodality approach of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, surgery with total mesorectal excision, and systemic chemotherapy. However, the morbidity and mortality related to both local and distant organ relapse have remained challenging. In the present review, we have discussed the trial-level evidence that has shaped the current clinical practice patterns in the treatment of curable, nonmetastatic rectal cancer. In addition, we have discussed the anticipated results of ongoing clinical trials and outlined pragmatic opportunities for future investigation to optimize the current status quo and, hopefully, provide prospective validation of novel approaches in the treatment of rectal cancer.

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.

Three-year outcome after transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter comparative analysis

Background

For patients with mid and distal rectal cancer, robust evidence on long-term outcome and causal treatment effects of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is lacking. This multicentre retrospective cohort study aimed to assess whether TaTME reduces locoregional recurrence rate compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME).

Methods

Consecutive patients with rectal cancer within 12 cm from the anal verge and clinical stage II-III were selected from three institutional databases. Outcome after TaTME (Nov 2011 - Feb 2018) was compared to a historical cohort of patients treated with LapTME (Jan 2000 - Feb 2018) using the inverse probability of treatment weights method. The primary endpoint was three-year locoregional recurrence.

Results

A total of 710 patients were analysed, 344 in the TaTME group and 366 in the LapTME group. At 3 years, cumulative locoregional recurrence rates were 3.6% (95% CI, 1.1–6.1) in the TaTME group and 9.6% (95% CI, 6.5–12.7) in the LapTME group (HR = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.23–0.69; p = 0.001). Three-year cumulative disease-free survival rates were 74.3% (95% CI, 68.8–79.8) and 68.6% (95% CI, 63.7–73.5) (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65–1.02; p = 0.078) and three-year overall survival 87.2% (95% CI, 82.7–91.7) and 82.2% (95% CI, 78.0–86.2) (HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53–1.03; p = 0.077), respectively. In patients who underwent sphincter preservation procedures, TaTME was associated with a significantly better disease-free survival (HR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62–0.98; p = 0.033).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that TaTME may improve locoregional recurrence and disease-free survival rates among patients with mid and distal locally advanced rectal cancer.

Transanal Surgery: A History of taTME Ancestry

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is the culmination of major developments in rectal cancer management and minimally invasive surgery. This surgical breakthrough holds great promise and excitement for the care of the rectal cancer patient. We would be remiss in discussing taTME to not acknowledge the role of transanal abdominal transanal proctosigmoidectomy, transanal endoluminal microsurgery, laparoscopy, and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery that got us to this modern day explosion of the taTME approach. In this article, we detail and explain the convergence of these disparate experiences, how they culminated in the development of the taTME, and explore future directions in this field.

Evolution of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

Minimally invasive techniques continue to transform the field of colorectal surgery. Because traditional surgical approaches for rectal cancer are associated with significant mortality and morbidity, developing less invasive approaches to this disease is paramount. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), commonly known as "no incision surgery," represents the ultimate minimally invasive approach to disease. Although transgastric and transvaginal approaches for NOTES surgery were the initially explored, a transrectal approach for colorectal disease is intuitive given that it makes use of the resected organ for transluminal access. Furthermore, the transanal approach allows for improved, precise visualization of the presacral mesorectal plane compared with an abdominal viewpoint, particularly in the narrow, male pelvis. Finally, experience with existing transanal platforms that have been used for decades for local excision of rectal disease made the development of a transanal approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) feasible. Here, we will review the evolution of minimally invasive and transanal surgical techniques that allowed for the development of transanal TME and its introduction into clinical practice.

Summary of Oncologic and Functional Outcomes

Large cohort and collaborative studies to date have shown that the short-term oncological outcomes appear to be at least as good as traditional laparoscopic surgery. These results need confirmation in randomized controlled trials, which are currently underway (GRECCAR 11 and COLOR III). The functional data on transanal total mesorectal excision is still very scarce and more mature data on quality of life and function outcomes are eagerly awaited.