-
International Journal of Surgery... Aug 2018Aim of this study is to report and to analyze the incidence, clinical impact and treatment options of ectopic air localizations after transanal procedures. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Aim of this study is to report and to analyze the incidence, clinical impact and treatment options of ectopic air localizations after transanal procedures.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The research was carried out using the PubMed database, identifying 40 articles with the following keywords: "transanal" AND "emphysema"; "transanal" AND "subcutaneous emphysema"; "transanal" AND "pneumomediastinum"; "transanal" AND "pneumothoraces"; "transanal" AND "pneumopericardium"; "transanal" AND "retropneumoperitoneum".
RESULTS
Nineteen articles, published between 1993 and 2017, were included in the study for a total of 29 patients. The most frequent air localization was in the retroperitoneum, followed by subcutaneous tissues, mediastinum and neck. This condition was treated conservatively in 20 patients, with colostomy in 4 patients, with bowel resection and negative diagnostic laparoscopy in one patient each. In three cases the treatment was not specified. Ectopic air location resolved in all cases.
CONCLUSIONS
Pneumo-mediastinum and pneumo-retroperitoneum after transanal procedures are unusual complications with a dramatic radiological appearance but can be managed successfully with a completely benign course in most cases. Initially, a conservative approach is recommended. Surgical treatment should be reserved only in case of fluid collection or suture dehiscence.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Mediastinal Emphysema; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Radiography; Retropneumoperitoneum; Subcutaneous Emphysema; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 29936199
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.743 -
Surgical Oncology Jun 2021We aimed to compare the safety and oncological outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and radical surgery (RS) for patients with T1 or T2 rectal cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
We aimed to compare the safety and oncological outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and radical surgery (RS) for patients with T1 or T2 rectal cancer.
METHOD
We searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies comparing TEM with RS in rectal cancer published until April 2020. We focused on safety and oncological outcomes.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 3526 patients from 12 studies. Compared with RS, TEM had a shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] -110.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 143.98, -76.06), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD -493.63, 95% CI: 772.66, -214.59), lower perioperative morality (risk ratio [RR] 0.25, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.99), and fewer postoperative surgical complications (RR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11,0.45). TEM was associated with more patients with a positive margin or a doubtfully complete margin than RS (RR 7.36, 95% CI: 3.66, 14.78). TEM was associated with higher local recurrence (RR 2.63, 95% CI: 1.60, 4.31) and overall recurrence (RR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.09, 2.36). TEM had a negative effect on 5-year overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.51, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.96), especially in the T2 without neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) subgroup (HR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.32, 3.09), but in the subgroups of T1 or T2 with NAT before TEM, TEM did not yield a significantly lower overall survival than RS.
CONCLUSION
TEM seems appropriate for T1 rectal cancer with favourable histopathology. For patients with T2 rectal cancer, NAT before TEM may contribute to achieving oncological outcomes equivalent to that achieved with RS.
Topics: Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Neoplasm Staging; Rectal Neoplasms; Survival Rate; Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33848762
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2021.101561 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Jan 2016The surgical technique used for transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) was reviewed including the oncological quality of resection and the peri-operative outcome. (Review)
Review
AIM
The surgical technique used for transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) was reviewed including the oncological quality of resection and the peri-operative outcome.
METHOD
A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane was performed in order to identify studies reporting on TaTME.
RESULTS
Thirty-six studies (eight case reports, 24 case series and four comparative studies) were identified, reporting 510 patients who underwent TaTME. The mean age ranged from 43 to 80 years and the mean body mass index from 21.7 to 31.8 kg/m(2) . The mean distance of the tumour from the anal verge ranged from 4 to 9.7 cm. The mean operation time ranged from 143 to 450 min and mean operative blood loss from 22 to 225 ml. The ratio of hand-sewn coloanal to stapled anastomoses performed was 2:1. One death was reported and the peri-operative morbidity rate was 35%. The anastomotic leakage rate was 6.1% and the reoperation rate was 3.7%. The mean hospital stay ranged from 4.3 to 16.6 days. The mesorectal excision was described as complete in 88% cases, nearly complete in 6% and incomplete in 6%. The circumferential resection margin was negative in 95% of cases and the distal resection margin was negative in 99.7%.
CONCLUSION
TaTME is a feasible and reproducible technique, with good quality of oncological resection. Standardization of the technique is required with formal training. Clear indications for this procedure need to be defined and its safety further assessed in future trials.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Anastomosis, Surgical; Anastomotic Leak; Blood Loss, Surgical; Humans; Operative Time; Peritoneum; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 26466751
DOI: 10.1111/codi.13151 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences May 2010Rectal cancers that are confined to the mucosa (T0) can be resected endoscopically. This can help the patient avoid transabdominal surgery. The published data on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rectal cancers that are confined to the mucosa (T0) can be resected endoscopically. This can help the patient avoid transabdominal surgery. The published data on accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to predict T0 stage of rectal cancers has been varied.
AIM
To evaluate the accuracy of EUS in T0 staging of rectal cancers. METHOD (STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA): Only EUS studies confirmed by surgery were selected. T0 was defined as tumor confined to the mucosa. DATA COLLECTION AND EXTRACTION: Articles were searched in Medline, PubMed, and CENTRAL.
STATISTICAL METHOD
Pooling was conducted by both the fixed-effects model and random-effects model.
RESULTS
An initial search identified 3,360 reference articles. Of these, 339 relevant articles were selected and reviewed. Eleven studies (N = 1,791) which met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Pooled sensitivity of EUS in diagnosing T0 was 97.3% (95% CI: 93.7-99.1). EUS had a pooled specificity of 96.3% (95% CI: 95.3-97.2). The positive likelihood ratio of EUS was 21.9 (95% CI: 16.3-29.7) and negative likelihood ratio was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.04-0.15). All the pooled estimates, calculated by fixed and random effect models, were similar. The P-value for Chi-squared heterogeneity for all the pooled accuracy estimates was >0.10.
CONCLUSIONS
EUS has excellent sensitivity and specificity, this helps accurately diagnose T0 stage of rectal cancers. Over the past two decades, the sensitivity and specificity of EUS to diagnose T0 stage of rectal cancers has remained high. This can help physicians offer endoscopic treatment to these patients, therefore EUS should be strongly considered for staging of early rectal cancers.
Topics: Endosonography; Humans; Models, Statistical; Neoplasm Staging; Proctoscopy; Rectal Neoplasms; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 19517233
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-009-0862-9 -
Surgical Endoscopy Sep 2020Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appeared to be a challenging alternative to Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LaTME) for low and middle rectal cancer.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appeared to be a challenging alternative to Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LaTME) for low and middle rectal cancer. However, evidence remains low on the possible benefits of TaTME. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of comparative studies between TaTME and LaTME.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted on Medline, Embase, and Cochrane database. The following outcomes were assessed: conversion, operative time, morbidity, length of stay, readmission rate, and pathological and oncological results.
RESULTS
After review of 756 identified records, 14 studies were included (case-matched control n = 10, prospective cohort n = 3, retrospective study n = 1) comparing 495 TaTME and 547 LaTME. No randomized trial was available. Following criteria were significantly improved after TaTME vs. LaTME: readmission's rate (9% after TaTME vs. 18% after LaTME, OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.26-0.74, p = 0.002), length of stay (OR - 2.17, 95%CI - 3.68 to - 0.66, p = 0.005), overall morbidity (34 vs. 41%, OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.46-0.91, p = 0.001), major morbidity (8.7 vs. 14%, OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.34-0.83, p = 0.005), anastomotic leak (6.4 vs. 11.6%, OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.31-0.93, p = 0.03), and circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement (4 vs. 8.8%, OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.27-0.86, p = 0.01). No significant differences were observed between TaTME and LaTME regarding conversion's rate (3.2 vs. 8.8%, p = 0.09), operative time (OR - 10.73, p = 0.26), intraoperative complications (8.1 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.48), minor morbidity (27.9 vs. 29.6%, p = 0.27), positive distal resection margin (1.4 vs. 1.4%, p = 0.93), complete TME (75 vs. 75%, p = 0.74), harvested lymph nodes (OR 0.38, p = 0.44), and local recurrence rate (3.5 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.64).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis based on nonrandomized studies suggests that TaTME seems better than LaTME in terms of overall and major morbidities, anastomotic leak, readmission rate, CRM involvement, and length of stay. These results need to be confirmed by randomized controlled trial.
Topics: Aged; Anastomotic Leak; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Readmission; Postoperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Prospective Studies; Publication Bias; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Retrospective Studies; Risk; Time Factors; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 31617090
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07160-8 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Oct 2023Despite its profound impact on the oncologic outcomes of rectal cancer, the most optimal surgical approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) has not been identified... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Impact of trans-anal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision on the surgical and pathologic outcomes of patients with rectal cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Despite its profound impact on the oncologic outcomes of rectal cancer, the most optimal surgical approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) has not been identified yet. All previous meta-analyses on this subject have been based on observational studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic TME (LaTME) compared to trans-anal TME (TaTME), utilizing only randomized controlled trials.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltials.gov) from 2010 onwards, for all published clinical trials comparing TaTME to LaTME. Results are presented as risk ratios, with 95% CI, and pooled using the random effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 1691 patients, from 6 eligible randomized controlled trials, were included for analysis. Analyzed data showed no significant difference in morbidity (RR: 0.85, p = 0.15), mortality (RR: 0.50, p = 0.44), conversion to open (RR: 0.40, p = 0.07), or anastomotic leakage (RR: 0.73, p = 0.10) between TaTME and LaTME. There was also no difference in the rate of positive distal resection margin (DRM) (RR: 0.55, p = 0.10) or positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR: 0.67, p = 0.30). Patients undergoing TaTME were more likely to have a complete TME (RR: 1.06, p = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays (RR: - 0.97, p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
Patients undergoing TaTME for rectal cancer were more likely to have a complete TME when compared to LaTME, though this did not translate into improved distal or circumferential resection margin. Additionally, TaTME and LaTME had similar surgical outcomes except for shorter length of stay with TaTME.
Topics: Humans; Margins of Excision; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Rectum
PubMed: 37861749
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03147-1 -
Surgical Endoscopy Mar 2020Minimally invasive treatment of early-stage rectal lesion has presented good results, with lower morbidity than surgical resection. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive treatment of early-stage rectal lesion has presented good results, with lower morbidity than surgical resection. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) are the main methods of transanal surgery. However, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been gaining ground because it allows en bloc resections with low recurrence rates. The aim of this study was to analyze ESD in comparison with transanal endoscopic surgery.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciELO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Lilacs/Bireme with no restrictions on the date or language of publication. The outcomes evaluated were recurrence rate, complete (R0) resection rate, en bloc resection rate, length of hospital stay, duration of the procedure, and complication rate.
RESULTS
Six retrospective cohort studies involving a collective total of 326 patients-191 in the ESD group and 135 in the transanal endoscopic surgery group were conducted. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any of the outcomes evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS
For the minimally invasive treatment of early rectal tumor, ESD and surgical techniques do not differ in terms of local recurrence, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, duration of the procedure, length of hospital stay, or complication rate, however, evidence is very low.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; Hemorrhage; Humans; Length of Stay; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Publication Bias; Rectal Neoplasms; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31754850
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07271-2 -
Journal of Visceral Surgery Dec 2018Transanal excision (TAE) is increasingly used in the treatment of early rectal cancer because of lower rate of both postoperative complications and postsurgical... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Does previous transanal excision for early rectal cancer impair surgical outcomes and pathologic findings of completion total mesorectal excision? Results of a systematic review of the literature.
BACKGROUND
Transanal excision (TAE) is increasingly used in the treatment of early rectal cancer because of lower rate of both postoperative complications and postsurgical functional disorders as compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) OBJECTIVE: To compare in a meta-analysis surgical outcomes and pathologic findings between patients who underwent TAE followed by completion proctectomy with TME (TAE group) for early rectal cancer with unfavorable histology or incomplete resection, and those who underwent primary TME (TME group).
METHODS
The Medline and Cochrane Trials Register databases were searched for studies comparing short-term outcomes between patients who underwent TAE followed by completion TME versus primary TME. Studies published until December 2016 were included. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).
RESULTS
Meta-analysis showed that completion TME after TAE was significantly associated with increased reintervention rate (OR=4.28; 95% CI, 1.10-16.76; P≤0.04) and incomplete mesorectal excision rate (OR=5.74; 95% CI, 2.24-14.75; P≤0.0003), as compared with primary TME. However there both abdominoperineal amputation and circumferential margin invasion rates were comparable between TAE and TME groups.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggests that previous TAE impaired significantly surgical outcomes and pathologic findings of completion TME as compared with primary TME. First transanal approach during completion TME might be evaluated in order to decrease technical difficulties.
Topics: Humans; Margins of Excision; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm, Residual; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Reoperation; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29657063
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2018.03.008 -
Surgical Endoscopy Aug 2021Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is technically challenging even for experienced colorectal surgeons and there may be a higher risk of complications during...
INTRODUCTION
Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is technically challenging even for experienced colorectal surgeons and there may be a higher risk of complications during learning. Determining when a surgeon is ready to safely perform this technique independently remains a matter of debate. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically summarize the available evidence regarding measures of proficiency in TaTME for rectal adenocarcinoma.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed Epub records, Biosis previews, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All English and French language studies published between 2010 and 2018 that described proficiency metrics for TaTME were included. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, and therefore qualitative synthesis was performed. The primary outcomes were the methodology and measures used to define proficiency, and the number of cases needed to achieve proficiency.
RESULTS
Of 994 citations, five studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, only two used objective measures to define proficiency. These studies evaluated patient outcomes and defined proficiency through cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis of the primary outcome(s): post-operative complications and TME quality. Two studies reported expert consensus to establish recommendations using a combination of electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons and consensus conferences with TaTME experts from 7 to 8 different countries. One study defined the learning phase as 16 months of TaTME practice, or the first 27 cases. Stated case volumes needed to achieve proficiency varied widely. Studies using objective outcome measures reported threshold volumes of 40 and 51 cases, respectively, while expert consensus studies recommended needing 6-30 procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
Significant heterogeneity exists regarding the determination of proficiency benchmarks for TaTME. Expert consensus documents recommend lower case numbers to obtain proficiency than those defined by objective measures, suggesting greater experience may be required than generally thought.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 32875417
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07935-4 -
The British Journal of Surgery Apr 2020Total mesorectal excision (TME) gives excellent oncological results in rectal cancer treatment, but patients may experience functional problems. A novel approach to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Total mesorectal excision (TME) gives excellent oncological results in rectal cancer treatment, but patients may experience functional problems. A novel approach to performing TME is by single-port transanal minimally invasive surgery. This systematic review evaluated the functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal and laparoscopic TME.
METHODS
A comprehensive search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and the trial registers was conducted in May 2019. PRISMA guidelines were used. Data for meta-analysis were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 11 660 studies were identified, from which 14 studies and six conference abstracts involving 846 patients (599 transanal TME, 247 laparoscopic TME) were included. A substantial number of patients experienced functional problems consistent with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Meta-analysis found no significant difference in major LARS between the two approaches (risk ratio 1·13, 95 per cent c.i. 0·94 to 1·35; P = 0·18). However, major heterogeneity was present in the studies together with poor reporting of functional baseline assessment.
CONCLUSION
No differences in function were observed between transanal and laparoscopic TME.
Topics: Fecal Incontinence; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32154594
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11566