-
International Urogynecology Journal Sep 2019Several posterior compartment surgical approaches are used to address posterior vaginal wall prolapse and obstructed defecation. We aimed to compare outcomes for both...
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
Several posterior compartment surgical approaches are used to address posterior vaginal wall prolapse and obstructed defecation. We aimed to compare outcomes for both conditions among different surgical approaches.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed comparing the impact of surgical interventions in the posterior compartment on prolapse and defecatory symptoms. MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 4 April 2018. Randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective comparative and single-group studies of women undergoing posterior vaginal compartment surgery for vaginal bulge or bowel symptoms were included. Studies had to include both anatomical and symptom outcomes both pre- and post-surgery.
RESULTS
Forty-six eligible studies reported on six surgery types. Prolapse and defecatory symptoms improved with native-tissue transvaginal rectocele repair, transanal rectocele repair, and stapled transanal rectocele repair (STARR) surgeries. Although prolapse was improved with sacrocolpoperineopexy, defecatory symptoms worsened. STARR caused high rates of fecal urgency postoperatively, but this symptom typically resolved with time. Site-specific posterior repairs improved prolapse stage and symptoms of obstructed defecation. Compared with the transanal route, native-tissue transvaginal repair resulted in greater improvement in anatomical outcomes, improved obstructed defecation symptoms, and lower chances of rectal injury, but higher rates of dyspareunia.
CONCLUSIONS
Surgery in the posterior vaginal compartment typically has a high rate of success for anatomical outcomes, obstructed defecation, and bulge symptoms, although these may not persist over time. Based on this evidence, to improve anatomical and symptomatic outcomes, a native-tissue transvaginal rectocele repair should be preferentially performed.
Topics: Constipation; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectocele; Retrospective Studies; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Vagina
PubMed: 31256222
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-019-04001-z -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum May 2022Completion total mesorectal excision is recommended when local excision of early rectal cancers demonstrates high-risk histopathological features. Concerns regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Completion total mesorectal excision is recommended when local excision of early rectal cancers demonstrates high-risk histopathological features. Concerns regarding the quality of completion resections and the impact on oncological safety remain unanswered.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to summarize and analyze the outcomes associated with completion surgery and undertake a comparative analysis with primary rectal resections.
DATA SOURCES
Data sources included PubMed, Cochrane library, MEDLINE, and Embase databases up to April 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
All studies reporting any outcome of completion surgery after transanal local excision of an early rectal cancer were selected. Case reports, studies of benign lesions, and studies using flexible endoscopic techniques were not included.
INTERVENTION
The intervention was completion total mesorectal excision after transanal local excision of early rectal cancers.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcome measures included histopathological and long-term oncological outcomes of completion total mesorectal excision. Secondary outcome measures included short-term perioperative outcomes.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies including 646 patients met the eligibility criteria, and 8 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Patients undergoing completion surgery have longer operative times (standardized mean difference, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.23-0.75; p = 0.0002) and higher intraoperative blood loss (standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.01-0.5; p = 0.04) compared with primary resections, but perioperative morbidity is comparable (risk ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.98-1.62; p = 0.08). Completion surgery is associated with higher rates of incomplete mesorectal specimens (risk ratio, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.41-6.62; p = 0.005) and lower lymph node yields (standardized mean difference, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.06; p = 0.01). Comparative analysis on long-term outcomes is limited, but no evidence of inferior recurrence or survival rates is found.
LIMITATIONS
Only small retrospective cohort and case-control studies are published on this topic, with considerable heterogeneity limiting the effectiveness of meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
This review provides the strongest evidence to date that completion surgery is associated with an inferior histopathological grade of the mesorectum and finds insufficient long-term results to satisfy concerns regarding oncological safety. International collaborative research is required to demonstrate noninferiority.
REGISTRATION NO
CRD42021245101.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Retrospective Studies; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35143429
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002407 -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2018Trans-anal total mesorectal resection (TaTME) is a novel approach for rectal cancer. However, the perioperative and pathological outcomes of this procedure remain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Trans-anal or trans-abdominal total mesorectal excision? A systematic review and meta-analysis of recent comparative studies on perioperative outcomes and pathological result.
BACKGROUND
Trans-anal total mesorectal resection (TaTME) is a novel approach for rectal cancer. However, the perioperative and pathological outcomes of this procedure remain controversial.
METHOD
A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Wanfang (China) and the Cochrane Library databases without restriction to regions or languages. We included 17 trials comparing TaTME with Laparoscopic TME (LaTME) for meta-analysis (MA). Fixed and random-effect models were used to measure the pooled estimates.
RESULTS
A total of 17 trials including 1346 patients were eligible for this MA. Pooled perioperative data using TaTME was associated with a significant reduction in estimated blood loss (WMD: 41.40, CI: 76.83 to -5.97; p = 0.02), hospital stay (WMD: 1.27, CI: 2.32 to -0.23; p = 0.02), conversion (OR: 0.28 CI: 0.15-0.52; p < 0.0001), readmission rates (OR: 0.42, CI: 0.25-0.69; p = 0.0007) and overall postoperative complications (OR: 0.73, CI: 0.56-0.95; p = 0.02). TaTME did not compromise surgical duration (WMD: 11.61, CI: 26.62-3.41; p = 0.13) or enhance complications including anastomotic leakage, ileus, urinary dysfunction, wound infection and pelvic abscess. Concerning pathological outcomes, the TaTME group demonstrated longer circumferential resection margins (CRM) (WMD: 0.91, CI: 0.58-1.24; p < 0.00001) and reduced CRM involvement (OR: 0.47, CI: 0.29-0.75; p = 0.002), whilst the distal resection margin (DRM) quality of the mesorectum and harvested lymph node were comparable.
CONCLUSION
TaTME achieves similar surgical outcomes to LaTME, with the added advantage of a safe CRMs, reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stay, lower conversion and readmission rates, and lower postoperative morbidity. Long-term oncological and functional data are now required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Lymph Nodes; Male; Mesocolon; Patient Readmission; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30415089
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.11.003 -
Annals of Surgery Jul 2019To compare techniques for rectal cancer resection. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare techniques for rectal cancer resection.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
Different surgical approaches exist for mesorectal excision.
METHODS
Systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis performed.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials included, reporting on 6237 participants, comparing: open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision. No significant differences identified between treatments in intraoperative morbidity, conversion rate, grade III/IV morbidity, reoperation, anastomotic leak, nodes retrieved, involved distal margin, 5-year overall survival, and locoregional recurrence. Operative blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery compared with open, and with robotic surgery compared with open and laparoscopic. Robotic operative time was longer compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal. Laparoscopic operative time was longer compared with open. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in lower overall postoperative morbidity and fewer wound infections compared with open. Robotic surgery had fewer wound infections compared with open. Time to defecation was longer with open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic. Hospital stay was longer after open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic, and after laparoscopic surgery compared with robotic. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in more incomplete or nearly complete mesorectal excisions compared with open, and in more involved circumferential resection margins compared with transanal. Robotic surgery resulted in longer distal resection margins compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal.
CONCLUSIONS
The different techniques result in comparable perioperative morbidity and long-term survival. The laparoscopic and robotic approaches may improve postoperative recovery, and the open and transanal approaches may improve oncological resection. Technique selection should be based on expected benefits by individual patient.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Humans; Laparoscopy; Proctectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30720507
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003227 -
Endoscopy Nov 2011Large ( > 2 cm) rectal adenomas are currently treated by either transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). The potential... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS
Large ( > 2 cm) rectal adenomas are currently treated by either transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). The potential lower morbidity of EMR may become irrelevant if EMR is less effective. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of EMR and TEM for large rectal adenomas.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature published between January 1980 and January 2009 was conducted. Pooled estimates of the proportion of patients with recurrence or complications in EMR and TEM studies were compared using random effects meta-regression analysis. Early (after single intervention) and late (excluding re-treatment of residual adenoma detected within 3 months) recurrence rates were calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 20 EMR studies and 48 TEM studies were included. No studies directly compared EMR with TEM. Mean polyp size was 31 mm (range 2 - 86 mm) for EMR vs. 37 mm (range 3 - 182 mm) for TEM (P = 0.02). Early recurrence rates were 11.2 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 6.0 - 19.9) for EMR vs. 5.4 % (95 %CI 4.0 - 7.3) for TEM (P = 0.04). Late recurrence rates were 1.5 % (95 %CI 0.6 - 3.9) for EMR vs. 3.0 % (95 %CI 1.3 - 6.9) for TEM (P = 0.29). Postoperative complication rates were 3.8 % (95 %CI 2.8 - 5.3) for EMR vs. 13.0 % (95 %CI 9.8 - 17.0) for TEM (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
After single intervention, EMR for large rectal adenomas appears to be less effective but safer than TEM. When outcome data for re-treatment of residual adenoma within 3 months are included, EMR and TEM seem equally effective. Nevertheless, the added morbidity of additional EMRs could not be accounted for in this analysis. A prospective randomized trial seems imperative before making recommendations concerning the treatment of large rectal adenomas.
Topics: Adenoma; Humans; Intestinal Mucosa; Microsurgery; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Postoperative Complications; Proctoscopy; Rectal Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21971923
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1256765 -
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 -
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 -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum May 2022
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35143430
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002419 -
Hepato-gastroenterology Jun 2015Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) has received attention as an alternative to transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal lesions. We review the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) has received attention as an alternative to transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal lesions. We review the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS for the treatment of rectal lesions.
METHODOLOGY
The MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using predefined inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were positive margin rate, recurrence rate, conversion rate, range of applications, and complication rates. To derive pooled estimates of proportions with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the outcomes, a random effect model was used.
RESULTS
Twelve studies including 155 patients were identified. The weighted mean size of rectal lesions was 3.3 cm (range 0.2-10 cm) and the weighted mean distance from the anal verge was 7.4 cm (range 0-20 cm). Six studies enrolled only the patients with low and mid rectal lesions mainly to avoid peritoneal entrance during excision.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the evidence from this limited number of studies, TAMIS appears to be an effective and safe treatment for rec tal lesions. However, the clinical outcome of TAMIS according to the location of the rectal lesions needs to be clarified. Comparison with other established surgical treatments are also mandatory.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adenoma; Conversion to Open Surgery; Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm, Residual; Rectal Neoplasms; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Burden
PubMed: 26902017
DOI: No ID Found