-
Surgical Endoscopy May 2023In the advancement of transanal local excision, robot-assisted transanal minimal invasive surgery is the newest development. In the confined area of the rectum,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In the advancement of transanal local excision, robot-assisted transanal minimal invasive surgery is the newest development. In the confined area of the rectum, robot-assisted surgery should, theoretically, be superior due to articulated utensils, video enhancement, and tremor reduction, however, this has not yet been investigated. The aim of this study was to review the evidence reported to-date on experience of using robot-assisted transanal minimal invasive surgery for treatment of rectal neoplasms.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search of Embase and PubMed from May to August 2021were performed. Studies including patients diagnosed with rectal neoplasia or benign polyps who underwent robot-assisted transanal minimal invasive surgery were included. All studies were assessed for risk of bias through assessment tools. Main outcome measures were feasibility, excision quality, and complications.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies with a total of 322 local excisions were included. The studies included were all retrospective, primarily case-reports, -series, and cohort studies. The median distance from the anal verge ranged from 3.5 to 10 cm and the median size was between 2.5 and 5.3 cm. Overall, 4.6% of the resections had a positive resection margin. The overall complication rate was at 9.5% with severe complications (Clavien-Dindo score III) at 0.9%.
CONCLUSION
Based on limited, retrospective data, with a high risk of bias, robot-assisted transanal minimal invasive surgery seems feasible and safe for local excisions in the rectum.
Topics: Humans; Robotics; Retrospective Studies; Feasibility Studies; Rectum; Rectal Neoplasms; Anal Canal; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Margins of Excision; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36707419
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09853-z -
Techniques in Coloproctology Mar 2018Multiple studies have demonstrated the benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS), but in several countries it has still not been widely adopted. LCS training is... (Review)
Review
Multiple studies have demonstrated the benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS), but in several countries it has still not been widely adopted. LCS training is associated with several challenges, such as patient safety concerns and a steep learning curve. Current evidence may facilitate designing of efficient training curricula to overcome these challenges. Basic training with virtual reality simulators has witnessed meteoric advances and may be essential during the early parts of the learning curve. Cadaveric and animal model training still constitutes an indispensable training tool, due to a higher degree of difficulty and greater resemblance to real operative conditions. In addition, recent evidence favors the use of novel training paradigms, such as proficiency-based training, case selection and modular training. This review summarizes the recent advances in LCS training and provides the evidence for designing an efficient training curriculum to overcome the challenges of LCS training.
Topics: Cadaver; Colorectal Surgery; Curriculum; Educational Measurement; Humans; Internship and Residency; Laparoscopy; Learning Curve; Models, Animal; Patient Safety; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Simulation Training; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 29512045
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-018-1760-y -
Injury Jun 2017Traumatic injuries to the lower gastrointestinal tract (rectum and anus) have been largely reported in the military setting with sparse publications from the civilian... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Traumatic injuries to the lower gastrointestinal tract (rectum and anus) have been largely reported in the military setting with sparse publications from the civilian setting. Additionally, there remains a lack of international consensus regarding definitive treatment pathways. This systematic review aimed to assess the current literature and propose a standardised treatment algorithm to aid management in the civilian setting.
METHODS
A systematic review of available literature from 1999 to 2016 that was performed. Primary endpoints were the assessment and surgical management of reported rectal and anal trauma.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included in this review, reporting on 1255 patients. 96.3% had rectal trauma and 3.7% had anal trauma. Gunshot wounds are the most common mechanism of injury (46.9%). The overwhelming majority of injuries occurred in males (>85%) and were associated with other pelvic injuries. Surgical management has substantially evolved over the last five decades, with no clear consensus on best management strategies.
CONCLUSION
There remains significant international discrepancy regarding the management of penetrating trauma to the rectum. Key management principals include the varying use of the direct primary closure, faecal diversion, pre-sacral drainage and/or distal rectal washout (rarely used). To date, there is sparse evidence regarding the management of penetrating anal trauma.
Topics: Algorithms; Anal Canal; Clinical Protocols; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Drainage; Emergency Medicine; Fecal Incontinence; Humans; Peritoneal Lavage; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Proctoscopy; Rectum; Wounds, Penetrating
PubMed: 28292518
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.03.002 -
Medicine Jul 2018Recently, in order to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of low rectal cancer, a new kind of surgical procedure, transanal total... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recently, in order to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of low rectal cancer, a new kind of surgical procedure, transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME), has rapidly become a research hotspot in the field of rectal cancer surgery study. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for the patients with rectal cancer.
METHODS
Relevant studies were searched from the databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of science. All relevant studies were collected to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TaTME for patients with rectal cancer. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and Cochrane Library Handbook 5.1.0. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies including 859 patients were included in our analysis. In terms of efficacy, compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME), meta-analysis showed that the rate of complete tumor resection increased and the risk of positive circumferential margins decreased in the TaTME group. For complete tumor resection and positive circumferential margins in the TaTME group, the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.93 and 1.09 to 3.42 (P = .02) and 0.43 and 0.22 to 0.82 (P = .01), respectively. Concerning safety, results showed that the rates of postoperative complications were similar in the 2 groups, and differences in the risk of ileus and anastomotic leakage were not statistically significant (OR = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.51-1.09, P = .13; OR = 0.91, 95%CI = 0.46-1.78, P = .78; OR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.45-1.38, P = .40).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this meta-analysis show that TaTME is associated with a reduced positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate, and could achieve complete tumor resection and improved the long-term survival in patients with mid- and low-rectal cancer.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 29995787
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011410 -
Medicine Jan 2024Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular mid and low rectal cancer trends. However, there is currently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular mid and low rectal cancer trends. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between LaTME and TaTME of mid and low rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of LaTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer.
METHODS
Articles included searching through the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of science for articles on LaTME and TaTME. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022380067).
RESULTS
There are 8761 participants included in 33 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent LaTME had no statistical difference in operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay, over complications, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, anastomotic stenosis, wound infection, circumferential resection margin, distal resection margin, major low anterior resection syndrom, lymph node yield, loop ileostomy, and diverting ileostomy. There are similarities between LaTME and TaTME for 2-year DFS rate, 2-year OS rate, distant metastasis rat, and local recurrence rate. However, patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rates (RR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; I2 = 10.6%, P = .019) but TaTME had less end colostomy (RR 1.96; 95% CI: 1.19-3.23; I2 = 0%, P = .008).
CONCLUSION
This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the differences in safety and effectiveness between LaTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer through meta-analysis. Patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rate but TaTME had less end colostomy. There is no difference in other aspects. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Rats; Rectum; Anastomotic Leak; Margins of Excision; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Rectal Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38277570
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036859 -
ANZ Journal of Surgery Mar 2022Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) represents a novel approach to rectal dissection. Although many structured training programs have been developed worldwide to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) represents a novel approach to rectal dissection. Although many structured training programs have been developed worldwide to assist surgeons in implementing this new technique, the learning curve (LC) of taTME has yet to be conclusively defined. This is particularly important given the concerns regarding the complication profile and oncological safety of taTME. The aim of this review was to provide an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis of the LC for taTME, comparing the difference of outcomes between the LC and after learning curve (ALC) groups.
METHODS
An up-to-date systematic review was performed on the available literature between 2010-2020 on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Library databases. All studies comparing taTME procedures before and after LC were analysed.
RESULTS
Seven retrospective studies of prospectively collected databases were included, comparing 333 (51.0%) patients in the LC group and 320 (49.0%) patients in the ALC group. There was a significantly reduced number of adverse intra-operative events, anastomotic leaks and improved quality of mesorectal excision in the ALC group.
CONCLUSION
This review shows that there is a significant improvement in clinical outcomes between the LC and ALC groups which supports the need for careful mastery and ongoing technical refinement during the LC in taTME. This procedure should be performed on a subset of carefully selected patients in the hands of experienced and well-trained teams dedicated to ongoing audit.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Learning Curve; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Retrospective Studies; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34676655
DOI: 10.1111/ans.17262 -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum Apr 2016Transanal mesorectal resection has been developed to facilitate minimally invasive proctectomy for rectal cancer. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Transanal mesorectal resection has been developed to facilitate minimally invasive proctectomy for rectal cancer.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the evidence regarding technical parameters, oncological outcomes, morbidity, and mortality after transanal mesorectal resection.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases were reviewed.
STUDY SELECTION
Systematic review of the literature from January 2005 to September 2015 was used for study selection.
INTERVENTION
Intervention included transanal mesorectal resection for rectal cancer.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Technical parameters, histological outcomes, morbidity, and mortality were the outcomes measured.
RESULTS
Fifteen predominately retrospective studies involving 449 patients were included (mean age, 64.3 years; 64.1% men). Different platforms were used. The operative mortality rate was 0.4% and the cumulative morbidity rate 35.5%. Circumferential resection margins were clear in 98%, and the resected mesorectum was grade III in 87% of patients. Median follow-up was 14.7 months. There were 4 local recurrences (1.5%) and 12 patients (5.6%) with metastatic disease. No study followed patients long enough to report on 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates. Functional outcome was only reported in 3 studies.
LIMITATIONS
A low number of procedures were performed by expert early adopters. There are no comparative or randomized data included in this study and inconsistent reporting of outcome variables.
CONCLUSIONS
Transanal mesorectal resection for rectal cancer may enhance negative circumferential margin rates with a reasonable safety profile. Contemporary randomized, controlled studies are required before there can be universal recommendation.
Topics: Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26953993
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000571 -
PloS One 2023Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This...
OBJECTIVES
Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria.
RESULTS
12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used.
CONCLUSION
Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.
Topics: Humans; Robotics; Rectal Neoplasms; Proctectomy; Laparoscopy; Hospitalization; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Rectum; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37506122
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289090 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Jun 2017Current guidelines recommend radical resection for stage I rectal cancer. However, since screening programs are being installed, an increasing number of cancers are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Current guidelines recommend radical resection for stage I rectal cancer. However, since screening programs are being installed, an increasing number of cancers are being detected in early stages. Endoscopic resection is often performed at the time of diagnosis. This systematic review was undertaken to review the evidence on endoscopic approach vs. radical resection for stage I rectal cancer. Recommendations were issued based on the GRADE methodology and risk stratification used in clinical practice. A systematic search (until March 2015) identified 2 meta-analyses and 1 additional randomized trial. For the primary outcomes (overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival and metastasis-free survival) no evidence could be found on the superiority of local or radical resection. Secondary outcomes (blood loss, hospital stay, operative time, number of permanent stomas and perioperative deaths) were in favour of local resection. The authors strongly recommend radical resection for T2 rectal cancer, but consider 'en bloc' local resection sufficient for pT1 sm1 rectal cancers when confirmed pathologically. Discussion by a multidisciplinary team and adequate surveillance remain mandatory.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Rectal Neoplasms; Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28477746
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.03.008 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Jul 2020In order to assess the various surgical modalities for local resection of rectal tumors, a systematic review of the current literature and a network meta-analysis (NMA)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In order to assess the various surgical modalities for local resection of rectal tumors, a systematic review of the current literature and a network meta-analysis (NMA) was designed and conducted.
METHODS
The present study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions principles. Scholar databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science) were systematically screened up to 23/12/2019. A Bayesian NMA, implementing a Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis, was introduced for the probability ranking of the available surgical methods. Odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) of the categorical and continuous variables, respectively, were reported with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI).
RESULTS
Overall, 16 studies and 2146 patients were introduced in our study. Transanal minimal invasive surgery (TAMIS) displayed the highest performance regarding the overall postoperative morbidity, the perioperative blood loss, the length of hospitalization, and the peritoneal violation rate. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) was the most efficient modality for resecting an intact specimen. Although transanal local excision (TAE) had the highest ranking considering operative duration, it was associated with a significant risk for positive resection margins and tumor recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, TEM and TAMIS display superior oncological results over TAE. Due to several limitations, validation of these results requires further RCTs of a higher methodological level.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Rectal Neoplasms; Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32447481
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03634-7