Introduction of new techniques and technologies in surgery: Where is transanal total mesorectal excision today?

A systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological outcomes with transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

AIM

Transanal total mesorectal (taTME) excision is a method used to assist in the radical removal of the rectum. By adopting the concept of natural orifice surgery, it offers potential benefits over conventional techniques. Early enthusiasm for this strategy led to its rapid and widespread adoption. The imposing of a local moratorium was precipitated by the discovery in Norway of an uncommon multifocal pattern of locoregional recurrence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the incidence of local recurrence after taTME for rectal cancer.

METHOD

Conforming to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines checklist, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. This included case series and comparative studies between taTME and preferentially laparoscopic procedures published between 2010 and 2021.

RESULTS

There were a total of 1175 studies retrieved. After removal and screening for quality and relevance, the final analysis contained 40 studies. The local recurrence rate following taTME was 3.4% (95% CI 2.9%-3.9%, I2 = 0%) in 4987 patients with follow-up durations ranging from 0.7 to 5.5 years. Compared with laparoscopic TME, local recurrence was not statistically different for the taTME group (p = 0.076); however, it was less probable (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.24-1.09, I2 = 0%). Systemic recurrence and circumferential resection margin status were secondary outcomes; however, the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that the local recurrence for regular laparoscopic and transanal TME surgeries may be comparable, suggesting that taTME can be performed without influencing locoregional oncological outcomes in patients treated at specialized institutions and who have been cautiously selected.

Robotic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Compared to Laparoscopic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: Oncologic Results of the Past 5 Years

Colorectal cancer is one of the deadliest diseases on the planet. Rectal cancer (RC) is the 8 th most common type of cancer disease worldwide, accounting for over 300,000 fatalities in 2018. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered as the gold standard approach for surgical RC management. To alleviate technical problems associated with dissection of distal rectal, transanal procedure to mesorectum was developed. The robotic operating platforms’ development has brought about the most significant change. The robotic method, which was described first in the year 2001, is gaining popularity in colorectal surgery. A stable camera platform with three-dimensional imaging and tremor filtering, motion scaling, instruments with numerous degrees of freedom, 3 rd arm for fixed retraction, ambidextrous capability, superior ergonomics, and less fatigue, all these advantages have all influenced robotics implementation. However, there are certain disadvantages to robotic surgery, such as high expenses, lengthy time of operation, a bulky cart, and absence of haptic sense. Robotic transanal TME (R-TA TME) is unique method that integrates potential advantages of perineal dissection with precise control of distal margins, along with all robotic technology advantages with respect to dexterity and greater precision. This review goal is to evaluate the available literature critically regarding R-TA TME in comparison to laparoscopic TA TME (L-TA TME) using the most prevalent histopathological metrics, which are the circumferential resection margin, the distal rectal margin, recurrence rate, specimen quality, advantages, and disadvantages. Oncological results for the past 5 years were used. The resources were obtained from electronic sources such as Google Scholar and PubMed. The conclusion of this review revealed that R-TA TME is as safe as well as feasible as L-TA TME, is technically possible, and has comparable oncological results and short-term post-operative outcomes. However, further investigation is required to evaluate long-term oncological or functional results.

The impact of robotic surgery on a tertiary care colorectal surgery program, an assessment of costs and short term outcomes: A Canadian perspective

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for colorectal pathology has gained interest as it can overcome technical challenges and limitations of traditional laparoscopic surgery. A lack of training and costs have been cited as reasons for limiting its use in Canada. The objective of this paper was to assess the impact of robotic surgery on outcomes and costs in a Canadian setting.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing left sided colorectal surgery ("Pre-Robotic Phase" n = 145 vs. "Post Robotic Phase" n = 150) and a single tertiary care centre in Ontario, Canada. Utilization and success of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), length of stay, complications and hospital costs were compared. Univariate and Multivariate analysis was used for these comparisons.

RESULTS

Characteristics, diagnosis and type of resection were similar between groups. Robotic Implementation resulted in higher rates of successful MIS (i.e. attempt at MIS without conversion) (85% vs. 47%, P < 0.001), shorter mean length of stay (4.7 days vs. 8.4 days, P < 0.001), and similar mean operative times (3.9 h vs. 3.9 h, P = 0.93). Emergency Department visits were fewer in the Robotic Phase (24% vs. 34%, P = 0.04), with no difference in readmission, anastomotic leak or unplanned reoperation. After robotic implementation, the mean total hospital costs decreased, but this was not statistically significant (-$1453, 95% CI -$3974 to +$1068, P = 0.25). Regression analysis, adjusting for age, gender, obesity, ASA and procedure showed similar findings (Robotic Phase -$657, 95% CI -$3038 to +$1724, vs Pre Robotic Phase [Reference], P = 0.59).

INTERPRETATION

Implementation of a robotic colorectal surgery program in a Canadian tertiary care centre showed improved clinical outcomes, without a significant increase in the cost of care. Although this study is from a single institution, we have demonstrated that robotic colorectal surgery is feasible and can be cost effective in the right setting.

Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision: Is the future now?

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment for the curative radical resection of rectal cancers. Minimally invasive TME has been gaining ground favored by the continuous technological advancements. New procedures, such as transanal TME (TaTME), have been introduced to overcome some technical limitations, especially in low rectal tumors, obese patients, and/or narrow pelvis. The earliest TaTME reports showed promising results when compared with the conventional laparoscopic TME. However, recent publications raised concerns regarding the high rates of anastomotic leaks or local recurrences observed in national series. Robotic TaTME (R-TaTME) has been proposed as a novel technique incorporating the potential benefits of a perineal dissection together with precise control of the distal margins, and also offers all those advantages provided by the robotic technology in terms of improved precision and dexterity. Encouraging short-term results have been reported for R-TaTME, but further studies are needed to assess the real role of the new technique in the long-term oncological or functional outcomes. The present review aims to provide a general overview of R-TaTME by analyzing the body of the available literature, with a special focus on the potential benefits, harms, and future perspectives for this novel approach.

Controversies and consensus in transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME): Is it a valid choice for rectal cancer?

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a novel approach to radical surgery for low rectal cancer. taTME is associated with the benefits of a higher rate of free distal resection margins (DRM) under direct visualization, better visualization of the mesorectal plane, and the feasibility of overcoming the restriction of the distal pelvis. Thus, it is increasingly used globally. In this review, we investigated whether taTME yields better short- and long-term outcomes than laparoscopic TME.