-
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 -
International Journal of Radiation... Dec 2019The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic outcome while minimizing effect of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care...
The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic outcome while minimizing effect of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care treatment for most early rectal cancers is radical surgery alone. Given the morbidity associated with radical surgery, local excision for early rectal cancers has been explored as an alternative approach associated with lower rates of morbidity. The American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria presented in this manuscript are evidence-based guidelines for the use of local excision in early stage rectal cancer that include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) used by a multidisciplinary expert panel to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners and patients who desire information regarding the use of local excision in rectal cancer.
Topics: Alpha Particles; Antineoplastic Agents; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Evidence-Based Practice; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Patient Selection; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Proctoscopy; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Societies, Medical; Standard of Care; Treatment Outcome; United States; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 31445109
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.08.020 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Dec 2016Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been developed to improve quality of TME for patients with mid and low rectal cancer. However, despite enthusiastic... (Review)
Review
Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been developed to improve quality of TME for patients with mid and low rectal cancer. However, despite enthusiastic uptake and teaching facilities, concern exists for safe introduction. TaTME is a complex procedure and potentially a learning curve will hamper clinical outcome. With this systematic review, we aim to provide data regarding morbidity and safety of TaTME. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid) and Cochrane Library. Case reports, cohort series and comparative series on TaTME for rectal cancer were included. To evaluate a potential effect of case volume, low-volume centres (n ≤ 30 total volume) were compared with high-volume centres (n > 30 total volume). Thirty-three studies were identified (three case reports, 25 case series, five comparative studies), including 794 patients. Conversion was performed in 3.0% of the procedures. The complication rate was 40.3, and 11.5% were major complications. The quality of the mesorectum was "complete" in 87.6%, and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was involved in 4.7%. In low- versus high-volume centres, the conversion rate was 4.3 versus 2.7%, and major complication rates were 12.2 versus 10.5%, respectively. TME quality was "complete" in 80.5 versus 89.7%, and CRM involvement was 4.8 and 4.5% in low- versus high-volume centres, respectively. TaTME for mid and low rectal cancer is a promising technique; however, it is associated with considerable morbidity. Safe implementation of the TaTME should include proctoring and quality assurance preferably within a trial setting.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Clinical Competence; Conversion to Open Surgery; Female; Hospitals, High-Volume; Hospitals, Low-Volume; Humans; Learning Curve; Male; Mesocolon; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27853973
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-016-1545-0 -
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 -
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 -
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