-
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Sep 2016The craniovertebral junction (CVJ) is a complex region of the spine with unique anatomical and functional relationships. To alleviate symptoms associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECT
The craniovertebral junction (CVJ) is a complex region of the spine with unique anatomical and functional relationships. To alleviate symptoms associated with pathological processes involving the odontoid process, decompression is often required, including odontoidectomy. Accurate knowledge of the complication rates following the transoral and transnasal techniques is essential for both patients and surgeons.
METHODS
We conducted MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science database searches for studies reporting complications associated with the transoral and transnasal techniques for odontoidectomy. Case series presenting data for less than three patients were excluded. Rates of complication and clinical outcomes were calculated and subsequently analyzed using a fixed-effects model to assess statistical significance.
RESULTS
Of 1288 articles retrieved from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, twenty-six met inclusion criteria. Transoral and transnasal procedures resulted in the following respective complication rates: arterial injury 1.9% and 0.0%, intraoperative CSF leak 0.3% and 30.0%, postoperative CSF leak 0.8% and 5.2%, 30-day mortality 2.9% and 4.4%, medical complications 13.9% and 28.6%, meningitis 1.0% and 4.0%, pharyngeal wound dehiscence 1.7% (transnasal not reported), pneumonia 10.3% (transnasal not reported), prolonged or re-intubation 5.6% and 6.0%, reoperation 2.5% and 5.1%, sepsis 1.9% and 7.7%, tracheostomy 10.8% and 3.4%, velopharyngeal insufficiency 3.3% and 6.4% and wound infection 3.3% and 1.9%. None of these differences were statistically significant, except for postoperative tracheostomy, which was significantly higher after transoral odontoidectomy 8.4% (95% CI 4.9% -11.9%) compared to transnasal odontoidectomy 0.8% (95% CI -1.0% -2.9%). Neurologic outcome was improved in 90.0% and worse in 0.9% of patients after transoral compared to 94.0% and 0.0% after transnasal odontoidectomy (p=0.30).
CONCLUSIONS
This work presents a systematic review of complications reported for transoral or transnasal odontoidectomy across a heterogeneous group of surgeons and patients. Due to inconsistent reporting, statistical significance was only achieved for postoperative tracheostomy, which was significantly higher in the transoral group. This investigation sets the framework for further discussions regarding odontoidectomy approach options and their associated complications during the informed consent process.
Topics: Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Mouth; Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery; Odontoid Process; Postoperative Complications; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 27442001
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.07.019 -
Danish Medical Journal Jul 2015Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment for mid and low rectal cancer. The procedure is performed by open, laparoscopic or robotic approaches.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment for mid and low rectal cancer. The procedure is performed by open, laparoscopic or robotic approaches. Transanal TME (TaTME) is a new procedure that potentially solves some difficulties in the pelvic part of the dissection. We aimed to evaluate the literature on TaTME.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search of the literature in the PubMed and Embase databases. Both authors assessed the studies. All publications on TaTME were included with the exception of review articles.
RESULTS
A total of 29 studies (336 patients) were included. Only low-quality evidence is available, and the literature consists of case reports and case series. Studies represent the initial experience of surgeons/centres. No precise indication for TaTME is yet specified other than the presence of mid and low rectal tumours, although the potential advantages seem to be related to a bulky mesorectum in the male pelvis. The preliminary results are encouraging and the most serious complication is urethral injury. The oncological results are acceptable, although the follow-up is short.
CONCLUSION
TaTME is a feasible approach for mid and low rectal cancers. Long-term follow-up data are awaited regarding functional results, local recurrence and survival, and to facilitate comparison with standard laparoscopic or robotic rectal resections.
Topics: Dissection; Female; Humans; Male; Rectal Neoplasms; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 26183050
DOI: No ID Found -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Oct 2021Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a surgical approach for treating mid to low rectal cancer as well as other colorectal diseases. Since the procedure is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a surgical approach for treating mid to low rectal cancer as well as other colorectal diseases. Since the procedure is difficult to master, perioperative complications of TaTME should be examined precisely, especially during the early implementation phase of this procedure. The primary aim of this review was to determine a pooled morbidity and anastomotic leakage (AL) rate after TaTME surgery, and the secondary aim was to show the completeness of reporting of complications among the included studies, as well as the correlation between completeness and reported incidence of complications.
METHOD
A systematic review of literature was conducted using Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases, searching for observational studies reporting on complications after TaTME. Studies published between 1 January 2010 and 15 October 2019 were included. Meta-analysis on the proportion of morbidity, AL and intraoperative complications was performed.
RESULTS
Forty-one studies (2446 TaTME cases), consisting of 27 noncomparative studies and 14 comparative studies, were included, after screening 1711 possible studies. The pooled rates of overall morbidity and AL were 30.0% (95% CI 26.4%-34.0%) and 6.8% (95% CI 5.2%-8.9%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the morbidity rate in studies that reported 30-day results (35.5%; 95% CI 31.8%-39.4%) was significantly higher than the rate in studies that did not define the follow-up length for complications (23.4%; 95% CI 17.8%-30.1%; p = 0.003). The rates of intraoperative urethral injury, rectal injury, vaginal injury and bladder injury were 0.3% (95% CI 0.1%-1.7%), 0.4% (95% CI 0.1%-2.2%), 0.3% (95% CI 0.1%-0.8%) and 0.3% (95% CI 0.1%-1.7%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis shows that pooled perioperative complication rates were within acceptable ranges. However, the significant difference in overall morbidity rate between the studies with 30-day results and the studies without a specified follow-up time, indicates a large under-reporting of complications in many studies.
Topics: Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34174138
DOI: 10.1111/codi.15792 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jul 2014Rectal carcinoids are increasing in incidence worldwide. Frequently thought of as a relatively benign condition, there are limited data regarding optimal treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Rectal carcinoids are increasing in incidence worldwide. Frequently thought of as a relatively benign condition, there are limited data regarding optimal treatment strategies for both localized and more advanced disease. The aim of this study was to summarize published experiences with rectal carcinoids and to present the most current data.
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, an electronic literature search performed of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the terms "rectum" or "rectal" AND "carcinoid" over a 20-year study period from January 1993 to May 2013. Non-English-language studies, animal studies, and studies of fewer than 100 patients were excluded. Study end points included demographic information, tumor features, intervention and outcomes. All included articles were quality assessed.
RESULTS
Using the search parameters and exclusions as outlined above, a total of 14 articles were identified for detailed analysis. The quality of articles was low/moderate for all included scoring 9 to 17 of 27. The articles included 4,575 patients diagnosed with a rectal carcinoid. Approximately 80% of tumors were <10 mm, 15% 11-20 mm, and 5% >20 mm. Eight percent of patients presented with regional lymph node metastases, and 4% presented with distant metastases. Tumor size >10 mm, and muscular and lymphovascular invasion are independently associated with an increased risk of metastases. The 5-year survival was 93% in patients presenting with localized disease and 86% overall.
CONCLUSIONS
Small tumors up to 10 mm without any adverse features can be treated with endoscopic or local excision. The treatment of carcinoids between 10 and 20 mm is still contentious, but those up to 16 mm without adverse feature are suitable for local/endoscopic excision followed by careful histopathological assessment. Those >20 mm or with adverse features require radical surgery with mesorectal clearance in suitable patients.
Topics: Carcinoid Tumor; Female; Humans; Intestinal Mucosa; Ligation; Lymphatic Metastasis; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Staging; Proctoscopy; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 24584484
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3430-0 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Aug 2021The aim of this study was to compare long-term oncological, functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL) after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to compare long-term oncological, functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL) after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for rectal cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were conducted on PubMed and Cochrane database. Non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) which compared TaTME with LaTME were included.
RESULTS
Ten non-randomized studies were identified, including a total of 638 patients (323 TaTME and 315 LaTME). Age, sex, body mass index, neoadjuvant treatment and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) staging of patients in the two groups were comparable in all included studies. The follow-up period was significantly shorter in the TaTME group than in the LaTME group. No significant differences in local (p = 0.71) and distant (p = 0.23) recurrence rate, 2-year disease-free (p = 0.86) and overall (p = 0.25) survival was found. Also, no significant differences in function outcomes and QoL, including the Wexner score (p = 0.48) or the International Prostate Syndrome Score (IPSS) (p = 0.64) were found. However, the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score was significantly higher in the TaTME group (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS
TaTME and LaTME have similar long-term oncological and functional outcomes as well as QoL. The only exception is higher LARS scores after TaTME. The current data are based mainly on observational studies and further randomized controlled trials are required.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Syndrome; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 34002288
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-021-02420-z -
BMC Cancer Jul 2016Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is an emerging surgical technique for rectal cancer. However, the oncological and perioperative outcomes are controversial... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.
BACKGROUND
Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is an emerging surgical technique for rectal cancer. However, the oncological and perioperative outcomes are controversial when compared with conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME).
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database. All original studies published in English that compared taTME with laTME were included for critical appraisal and meta-analysis. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of seven studies including 573 patients (taTME group = 270; laTME group = 303) were included in our meta-analysis. Concerning the oncological outcomes, no differences were observed in harvested lymph nodes, distal resection margin (DRM) and positive DRM between the two groups. However, the taTME group showed a higher rate of achievement of complete grading of mesorectal quality (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.02-3.01, P = 0.04), a longer circumferential resection margin (CRM) and less involvement of positive CRM (CRM: WMD = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.60-1.31, P <0.01; positive CRM: OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.17-0.86, P = 0.02). Concerning the perioperative outcomes, the results for hospital stay, intraoperative complications and readmission were comparable between the two groups. However, the taTME group showed shorter operation times (WMD = -23.45, 95% CI = -37.43 to -9.46, P <0.01), a lower rate of conversion (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.11-0.81, P = 0.02) and a higher rate of mobilization of the splenic flexure (OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 0.99-5.54, P = 0.05). Although the incidence of anastomotic leakage, ileus and urinary morbidity showed no difference between the groups, a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.45-0.95, P = 0.03) was observed in the taTME group.
CONCLUSIONS
In comparison with laTME, taTME seems to achieve comparable technical success with acceptable oncologic and perioperative outcomes. However, multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of taTME.
Topics: Anastomotic Leak; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Female; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Length of Stay; Male; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27377924
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2428-5 -
Surgical Endoscopy Apr 2022Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to summarize best evidence and develop a rapid guideline using transparent, trustworthy, and standardized methodology.
METHODS
We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE, G-I-N, and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of four general surgeons practicing colorectal surgery, a radiologist with expertise in rectal cancer, a radiation oncologist, a pathologist, and a patient representative. We conducted a systematic review and the results of evidence synthesis by means of meta-analyses were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus.
RESULTS
This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation for the use of TaTME over laparoscopic or robotic TME for low rectal cancer when expertise is available. Furthermore, it details evidence gaps to be addressed by future research and discusses policy considerations. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494 .
CONCLUSIONS
This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the use of TaTME for rectal cancer.
Topics: GRADE Approach; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 35212821
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09090-4 -
European Archives of... Aug 2015The purpose of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to compare the efficacy (and other postoperative outcomes) of... (Review)
Review
The purpose of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to compare the efficacy (and other postoperative outcomes) of nonabsorbable versus absorbable nasal packing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were published in English language, were randomized clinical trials, and reported on outcomes following postoperative synechia. The primary outcome for meta-analysis was the incidence of postoperative synechia; pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effects models. Five studies, involving 241 nasal cavities in each treatment group, were included in the systematic review. The prevalence of synechia ranged from 4.6 to 8.0 % in the absorbable groups and from 8.0 to 35.7 % in the nonabsorbable groups. Postoperative bleeding was lower in the absorbable groups, whereas there was no clear finding regarding postoperative pain. Postoperative edema was generally similar between groups. There were no consistent findings regarding bleeding and pain on packing removal. Two studies using the same type of packing material were included in the meta-analysis. The combined OR (0.33, 95 % CI 0.04-2.78) for postoperative synechia did not significantly favor (P = 0.308) absorbable packing over nonabsorbable packing. Although there is some evidence in the available literature that absorbable nasal packing may provide superior outcomes to nonabsorbable packing after FESS, the lack of homogeneity between studies makes definitive conclusions impossible. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to compare the efficacy of different types of absorbable nasal packing for preventing synechia after FESS.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Hemostasis, Surgical; Humans; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24927828
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-014-3107-2 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Nov 2021Resection of low rectal adenocarcinoma can be challenging in the narrow pelvis of male patients. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to offer technical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?
BACKGROUND
Resection of low rectal adenocarcinoma can be challenging in the narrow pelvis of male patients. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to offer technical advantages for distal rectal tumours, and robotic-assisted transabdominal TME (rTME) was introduced in effort to improve operative precision and ergonomics. However, no study has comprehensively compared these approaches. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare postoperative short-term outcomes in rTME and TaTME.
METHODS
A systematic online search (1974-July 2020) of MEDLINE, Embase, web of science and google scholar was conducted for trials, prospective or retrospective studies involving rTME, or TaTME for rectal cancer. Outcome variables included: hospital stay; operation duration, blood loss; resection margins; proportion of histologically complete resected specimens; lymph nodes; overall complications; anastomotic leak, and 30-day mortality.
RESULTS
Sixty-two articles met the inclusion criteria, including 37 studies (3835 patients) assessing rTME resection, 23 studies (1326 patients) involving TaTME and 2 comparing both (165 patients). Operating time was longer in rTME (309.2 min, 95% CI 285.5-332.8) than in TaTME studies (256.2 min, 95% CI 231.5-280.9) (p = 0.002). rTME resected specimens had a larger distal resection margin (2.62 cm, 95% CI 2.35-2.88) than in TaTME studies (2.10 cm, 95% CI 1.83-2.36) (p = 0.007). Other outcome variables did not significantly differ between the two techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
rTME provides similar pathological and short-term outcomes to TaTME and both are reasonable surgical approaches for patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer. To definitively answer the question of the optimal TME technique, we suggest a prospective trial comparing both techniques assessing long-term survival as a primary outcome.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prospective Studies; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34562160
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-021-02515-7 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... May 2024Transanal 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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%, I = 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, I = 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.
Topics: Humans; Rectal Neoplasms; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Proctectomy; Laparoscopy; Female; Treatment Outcome; Male; Middle Aged; Aged; Rectum; Incidence
PubMed: 38590019
DOI: 10.1111/codi.16982