A longer pelvis is associated with longer operative time in transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) but not in laparoscopic TME. Results from a retrospective cohort study

Introduction

A narrow pelvis, obesity, and bulky low rectal tumor are perceived as risk factors for intraoperative difficulties during total mesorectal excision (TME), particularly in the laparoscopic approach. A transanal approach has been developed to overcome the difficulties encountered during laparoscopic TME. There is no clear definition of a narrow pelvis that would guide preoperative surgical planning.

Aim

To evaluate different MRI-based pelvic measurements in patients undergoing TME to identify factors predictive of intraoperative difficulties in transabdominal compared to the transanal approach.

Material and methods

A retrospective analysis of 48 patients treated with laparoscopic TME and 62 with transanal TME for rectal tumors was performed. Multiple logistic regressions analyzed demographic, tumor, and pelvimetry factors that correlate with intraoperative difficulties measured as intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and perioperative complications in both surgical approaches.

Results

Multivariate analysis showed that age was associated with higher blood loss (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.00-1.18, p = 0.038), male gender (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-0.86, p = 0.029) and body mass index with longer operating time (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.06-1.64, p = 0.010) in the LAR group. Multivariate analysis showed that age increased the odds of intraoperative blood loss > 100 ml (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02-1.15, p = 0.013), and pelvic length > 119 mm increased operating time (OR = 5.76, 95% CI: 1.33-25.01, p = 0.016) in the TaTME group.

Conclusions

Pelvic measurements are not associated with intraoperative difficulties in LAR. Longer pelvis was associated with longer operative time in TaTME.

Short-term outcomes of chemoradiotherapy and local excision versus total mesorectal excision in T2-T3ab,N0,M0 rectal cancer: a multicentre randomised, controlled, phase III trial (the TAU-TEM study)

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment of T2-T3ab,N0,M0 rectal cancers is total mesorectal excision (TME) due to the high recurrence rates recorded with local excision. Initial reports of the combination of pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) have shown reductions in local recurrence. The TAU-TEM study aims to demonstrate the non-inferiority of local recurrence and the improvement in morbidity achieved with CRT-TEM compared with TME. Here we describe morbidity rates and pathological outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial including patients with rectal adenocarcinoma staged as T2-T3ab,N0,M0. Patients were randomised to the CRT-TEM or the TME group. Patients included, tolerance of CRT and its adverse effects, surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo and Comprehensive Complication Index classifications) and pathological results (complete response in the CRT-TEM group) were recorded in both groups. Patients attended follow-up controls for local and systemic relapse.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01308190.

RESULTS

From July 2010 to October 2021, 173 patients from 17 Spanish hospitals were included (CRT-TEM: 86, TME: 87). Eleven were excluded after randomisation (CRT-TEM: 5, TME: 6). Modified intention-to-treat analysis thus included 81 patients in each group. There was no mortality after CRT. In the CRT-TEM group, one patient abandoned CRT, 1/81 (1.2%). The CRT-related morbidity rate was 29.6% (24/81). Post-operative morbidity was 17/82 (20.7%) in the CRT-TEM group and 41/81 (50.6%) in the TME group (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval 42.9% to 16.7%). One patient died in each group (1.2%). Of the 81 patients in the CRT-TEM group who received the allocated treatment, 67 (82.7%) underwent organ preservation. Pathological complete response in the CRT-TEM group was 44.3% (35/79). In the TME group, pN1 were found in 17/81 (21%).

CONCLUSION

CRT-TEM treatment obtains high pathological complete response rates (44.3%) and a high CRT compliance rate (98.8%). Post-operative complications and hospitalisation rates were significantly lower than those in the TME group. We await the results of the follow-up regarding cancer outcomes and quality of life.

Robotic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (RTaTME): State of the Art

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard technique for the surgical management of rectal cancer. The transanal approach to the mesorectum was introduced to overcome the technical difficulties related to the distal rectal dissection. Since its inception, interest in transanal mesorectal excision has grown exponentially and it appears that the benefits are maximal in patients with mid-low rectal cancer where anatomical and pathological features represent the greatest challenges. Current evidence demonstrates that this approach is safe and feasible, with oncological and functional outcome comparable to conventional approaches, but with specific complications related to the technique. Robotics might potentially simplify the technical steps of distal rectal dissection, with a shorter learning curve compared to the laparoscopic transanal approach, but with higher costs. The objective of this review is to critically analyze the available literature concerning robotic transanal TME in order to define its role in the management of rectal cancer and to depict future perspectives in this field of research.

Total Mesorectal Excision Technique-Past, Present, and Future

While the treatment of rectal cancer is multimodal, above all, a proper oncological resection is critical. The surgical management of rectal cancer has substantially evolved over the past 100 years, and continues to progress as we seek the best treatment. Rectal cancer was historically an unsurvivable disease, with poor understanding of the embryological planes, lymphatic drainage, and lack of standardized technique. Major improvements in recurrence, survival, and quality of life have resulted from advances in preoperative staging, pathologic assessment, the development and timing of multimodal therapies, and surgical technique. The most significant contribution in advancing rectal cancer care may be the standardization and widespread implementation of total mesorectal excision (TME). The TME, popularized by Professor Heald in the early 1980s as a sharp, meticulous dissection of the tumor and mesorectum with all associated lymph nodes through the avascular embryologic plane, has shown universal reproducible reductions in local recurrence and improvement in disease-free and overall survival. Widespread education and training of surgeons worldwide in the TME have significantly impact outcomes for rectal cancer surgery, and the procedure has become the gold standard for curative resection of rectal cancer. In this article, we discuss the evolution of the standard abdominal approach to the TME, with emphasis on the history, relevant anatomy, standard procedure steps, oncologic outcomes, and technical evolution.

Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: hype or new hope?

Rectal cancer has always posed surgical challenges to the colorectal surgeon. The quality of the total mesorectal excision (TME) performed is key in determining local disease control. Unlike the great success in adoption of laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer treatment, studies comparing laparoscopy to open rectal surgery all revealed noninferiority was not achieved. Transanal TME (taTME) is the latest advanced technique pioneered to tackle difficult pelvic dissections. The evolution of taTME surgery in recent years was explored in this review. The outcomes to date on the latest literatures are reviewed, included complications, functional outcomes, oncological results and future clinical researches. taTME, while definitely still in its early stages of development, has steadily accumulated safety and feasibility data. It not only provides a better solution to an old problem that colorectal surgeons have been attempting to tackle for quite some time, but also appears to be quite promising in terms of outcomes on numerous fronts. With structured training models, and proctored clinical application, alongside design and implementation of international-scale large multicenter randomized clinical trials, one can only hope that taTME and its innovations will not only open a new era for colorectal surgery, but also for even more surgical disease pathologies.

Survey results of US radiation oncology providers' contextual engagement of watch-and-wait beliefs after a complete clinical response to chemoradiation in patients with local rectal cancer

Background

Watchful waiting in rectal cancer patients with a complete clinical response (cCR) to chemoradiation therapy (CRT) forgo upfront resection has been proposed. Growing evidence suggests that a watch-and-wait approach using resection for salvage of local recurrence may improve quality of life without jeopardizing outcomes. The current acceptance of watch-and-wait by US radiation oncologists (ROs) is unknown.

Methods

US ROs completed our IRB-approved anonymous e-survey regarding non-surgical management of patients who achieved a cCR to neoadjuvant CRT. Self-ranked knowledge of the OnCoRe Project-UK prospective observational study of watch-and-wait-was tested for its association with ROs' attitudes using the Chi-squared or Fisher's test, as indicated. Supporters of observation are self-identified.

Results

Of the 220 respondents, 48% (n=106) of respondents support watchful waiting and 48% claimed familiarity with the OnCoRe Project. Respondents supporting observation were more likely to be familiar with the publication (P=0.029). Among watch-and-wait supporters, 59% (n=62) felt comfortable discussing this approach and 41% preferred the conversation be initiated by other specialists. There was no association between comfort level in discussing watch-and-wait and familiarity with the OnCoRe Project. ROs treating more than 10 locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients annually felt more comfortable discussing watch-and-wait (P=0.015) compared to ROs seeing fewer patients.

Conclusions

Almost half of surveyed US ROs support watch-and-wait, though many do not feel comfortable discussing this paradigm with patients. Knowledge of the OnCoRe Project is associated with support of watch-and-wait, yet not comfort level in leading the discussion. These results inform provider attitudes toward future clinical study participation.

Laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for low rectal cancer through marker meeting approach

Laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) with sphincter preservation for ultra-low rectal cancer is always a challenging operation in colorectal surgery. To achieve negative margins, reducing the difficulty and risks of the procedure are major goals for us. The marker meeting approach we reported can help to accomplish this goal. The key technique for the marker meeting approach is to ensure a clear distal margin in a low resection of the rectum by transanal dissection. This procedure allows access to the space around the distal rectum and mesorectum and to pack the gauzes in the distal part of the space as a landmark. Routine laparoscopic LAR was performed to dissect the space until reaching the gauzes packed above and achieve complete mobilization of the rectum and mesorectum. This surgical procedure is simpler and reduces the difficulty of the operation. Therefore, it is expected to reduce the risk of surgery-related complications and positive margins and is suitable to be widely applied and extended in clinical practice. The short-term and long-term clinical outcomes of the marker meeting approach need more research in large samples.

[New perspectives in rectal cancer surgery: Transanal total mesorectal excision. Initial experiences]

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer is the second most frequent cause of oncologic mortality. Its key prognostic factors are operability and surgical quality. Total mesorectal excision is the gold standard of rectal cancer surgery, however, it is hardly achievable with the laparoscopic technique in a number of cases due to anatomical issues. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a new operative concept, which may address this technical problem.

AIM

We aimed to present the initial Hungarian experiences with the new technique.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of clinical data of the first year case series at two Hungarian centers initiating the technique.

RESULTS

A total of 17 transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) operations were performed at two centers. Major perioperative complications happened in two cases. There was no 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Early Hungarian experiences with transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) give hope of a brand new era of rectal cancer surgery. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(1): 16-22.

[Selective approach for splenic flexure mobilization in total mesorectal excision followed by low colorectal anastomoses]

AIM

To evaluate the results of selective approach for splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) after total mesorectal excision with low colorectal anastomoses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Clinical data were obtained from the multicenter RCT database comparing ileostomy and colostomy in patients with rectal cancer who underwent total mesorectal excision from 2012 to 2017. Our clinic policy is performing paraaortic lymph node dissection with 'low' inferior mesenteric artery ligation, left colic artery preservation and use of sigmoid colon for colorectal anastomosis. SFM was used only in cases of inability to apply above-mentioned procedure (selective approach for SFM).

RESULTS

SFM was performed in 15 (13%) out of 115 patients. The most frequent reasons for SFM were sigmoid colon diverticulosis, impaired blood supply or inadequate length of sigmoid colon. There were no differences in intraoperative and postoperative complications between TME without SFM and TME with SFM.

CONCLUSION

Selective SFM in TME followed by advanced paraaortic lymph node dissection and left colic artery preservation is safe and may be considered as a viable option to routine SFM in rectal cancer surgery.

Management of rectal cancer: the 2016 French guidelines

AIM

Rectal cancer is a malignant disease requiring multidisciplinary management. In view of the increasing number of studies published over the past decade, a comprehensive update is required to draw recommendations for clinical practice mandated by the French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery and the French National Coloproctology Society.

METHOD

Seven questions summarizing the treatment of rectal cancer were selected. A search for evidence in the literature from January 2004 to December 2015 was performed. A drafting committee and a large group of expert reviewers contributed to validate the statements.

RESULTS

Recommendations include the indications for neoadjuvant therapy, the quality criteria for surgical resection, the management of postoperative disordered function, the role of local excision in early rectal cancer, the place of conservative strategies after neoadjuvant treatment, the management of synchronous liver metastases and the indications for adjuvant therapy. A level of evidence was assigned to each statement.

CONCLUSION

The current clinical practice guidelines are useful for the treatment of rectal cancer. Some statements require a higher level of evidence due to a lack of studies.

A review on robotic surgery in rectal cancer

Robotic surgery has the upper hand when compared to the laparoscopic approach in terms of superior visualisation, flexibility in movement, steadiness and accessibility to confined anatomical spaces. Nevertheless, limitations still exist with regards to cost, reduced tactile sensation, time-consuming setup and a significant learning curve to achieve. Although studies have shown better or at least comparable outcomes between the robotic and laparoscopic approach, the limitations mentioned result in poor penetrance among centres and surgeons. Advancements in robotic surgery technology and attaining the acquired skillset will translate into better clinical outcomes for patients.

Single stage robotic total mesorectal excision-a stepwise approach

Background

The totally robotic procedure was traditionally described as a two-stage technique or a three-stage technique. The number of stages corresponds to the number of movements of the robotic cart. In this video article, we develop a stepwise approach video of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for mid rectal cancer (the surgery was performed by SHK) using a da Vinci^® Si HD Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) at Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.

Methods

After the induction of general anesthesia, the patient is placed in a modified lithotomy position. Six ports are used, including one 12-mm camera port, four 8-mm robotic working ports, and one 5-mm port for the assistant. The patient is tilted to the right side and placed in the Trendelenburg position. The small-bowel loops retracted out from the pelvic cavity to the right upper quadrant (RUQ) to expose the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA). The surgery is divided into three phases: (I) abdominal phase: vascular ligation, and sigmoid colon to splenic flexure mobilization; (II) pelvic dissection phase; and (III) rectal reconstruction phase. Mesorectal clearing was done at the level of rectal transection line (1-2 cm from distal tumor margin), then the rectum was transected with robotic stapler. Once this step is finished, the robotic arms are undocked and the cart is moved away from the patient. The remaining steps are performed in a conventional laparoscopic method.

Results

Robotic TME was performed in a 56-year-old man with an endoscopically define rectal mass. The lesion was moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, 8 cm from the anal verge (AV). The rectal mass was managed with single stage robotic TME. The operative time was 160 minutes and the patient was discharge on post operative day 10. Final pathology revealed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma.

Conclusions

Single stage robotic TME was efficient and feasible technique for mid rectal cancer resection.