-
International Journal of Colorectal... May 2024Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (R-TAMIS) was introduced in 2012 for the excision of benign rectal polyps and low grade rectal cancer. Ergonomic...
INTRODUCTION
Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (R-TAMIS) was introduced in 2012 for the excision of benign rectal polyps and low grade rectal cancer. Ergonomic improvements over traditional laparoscopic TAMIS (L-TAMIS) include increased dexterity within a small operative field, with possibility of better surgical precision. We aim to collate the existing data surrounding the use of R-TAMIS to treat rectal neoplasms from cohort studies and larger case series, providing a foundation for future, large-scale, comparative studies.
METHODS
Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched as part of our review. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or large case series (≥ 5 patients) investigating the use of R-TAMIS to resect rectal neoplasia (benign or malignant) were eligible for inclusion in our analysis. Quality assessment of included studies was performed via the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) risk of bias tool. Outcomes extracted included basic participant characteristics, operative details and histopathological/oncological outcomes.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies on 317 participants were included in our analysis. The quality of studies was generally satisfactory. Overall complication rate from R-TAMIS was 9.7%. Clear margins (R0) were reported in 96.2% of patients. Local recurrence (benign or malignant) occurred in 2.2% of patients during the specified follow-up periods.
CONCLUSION
Our review highlights the current evidence for R-TAMIS in the local excision of rectal lesions. While R-TAMIS appears to have complication, margin negativity and recurrence rates superior to those of published L-TAMIS series, comparative studies are needed.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Anal Canal; Margins of Excision; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38724801
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-024-04645-4 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery May 2024Transanal minimally invasive surgery has theoretical advantages for ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery. We performed a systematic review assessing technical approaches... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Transanal minimally invasive surgery has theoretical advantages for ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery. We performed a systematic review assessing technical approaches to transanal IPAA (Ta-IPAA) and meta-analysis comparing outcomes to transabdominal (abd-IPAA) approaches.
METHODS
Three databases were searched for articles investigating Ta-IPAA outcomes. Primary outcome was anastomotic leak rate. Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, post operative morbidity, and length of stay (LoS). Staging, plane of dissection, anastomosis, extraction site, operative time, and functional outcomes were also assessed.
RESULTS
Searches identified 13 studies with 404 unique Ta-IPAA and 563 abd-IPAA patients. Anastomotic leak rates were 6.3% and 8.4% (RD 0, 95% CI -0.066 to 0.065, p = 0.989) and conversion rates 2.5% and 12.5% (RD -0.106, 95% CI -0.155 to -0.057, p = 0.104) for Ta-IPAA and abd-IPAA. Average LoS was one day shorter (MD -1, 95% CI -1.876 to 0.302, p = 0.007). A three-stage approach was most common (47.6%), operative time was 261(± 60) mins, and total mesorectal excision and close rectal dissection were equally used (49.5% vs 50.5%). Functional outcomes were similar. Lack of randomised control trials, case-matched series, and significant study heterogeneity limited analysis, resulting in low to very low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis demonstrated the feasibility and safety of Ta-IPAA with reduced LoS, trend towards less conversions, and comparable anastomotic leak rates and post operative morbidity. Though results are encouraging, they need to be interpreted with heterogeneity and selection bias in mind. Robust randomised clinical trials are warranted to adequately compare ta-IPAA to transabdominal approaches.
Topics: Humans; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Anastomotic Leak; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome; Length of Stay; Colonic Pouches; Operative Time; Anastomosis, Surgical
PubMed: 38705912
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-024-03343-7 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... May 2024Restorative proctocolectomy with transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (abd-IPAA) has become the standard surgical treatment for medically refractory ulcerative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Restorative proctocolectomy with transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (abd-IPAA) has become the standard surgical treatment for medically refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). However, it requires a technically difficult distal anorectal dissection and anastomosis due to the bony confines of the deep pelvis. To address these challenges, the transanal IPAA approach (ta-IPAA) was developed. This novel approach may offer increased visibility and range of motion compared with abd-IPAA, although its postoperative benefits remain unclear. The aim of this work was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare and inform the frequency of postoperative outcomes between ta-IPAA and abd-IPAA for patients with UC.
METHOD
Several databases were searched from inception until May 2022 for studies reporting postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing ta-IPAA. Reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, evaluated studies for inclusion and graded the risk of bias. Odds ratios (OR), mean differences (MD) and prevalence ratio (PR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Sensitivity analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Ten retrospective studies comprising 284 patients with ta-IPAA were included. Total mesorectal excision was performed in 61.8% of cases and close rectal dissection in 27.9%. There was no difference in the odds of Clavien-Dindo (CD) I-II complications, CD III-IV and anastomotic leak (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.27-3.40; OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.65-2.16; OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58-3.23; respectively) between ta-IPAA and abd-IPAA. The ta-IPAA pooled CD I-II complication rate was 18% (95% CI 5%-35%) and for CD III-IV 10% (95% CI 5%-17%), and the anastomotic leak rate was 6% (95% CI 2%-10%). There were no deaths reported.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis compared the novel ta-IPAA procedure with abd-IPAA and found no difference in postoperative outcomes. While the need for randomized controlled trails and comparison of functional outcomes between both approaches remains, this evidence should assist colorectal surgeons to decide if ta-IPAA is a viable alternative.
Topics: Humans; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Colitis, Ulcerative; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Colonic Pouches; Anal Canal; Female; Male; Adult; Retrospective Studies; Middle Aged; Anastomosis, Surgical; Anastomotic Leak; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
PubMed: 38594838
DOI: 10.1111/codi.16977 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Minerva Surgery Aug 2023Total mesorectal excision (TME) during rectal resection is considered the gold standard for the treatment of rectal cancer. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME)...
INTRODUCTION
Total mesorectal excision (TME) during rectal resection is considered the gold standard for the treatment of rectal cancer. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) was first described in 2010 and has been applied to humans since 2012 to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with minimally invasive TMEs.
EVIDENCE ACQUSITION
A systematic review of the literature was conducted, and it focused on articles published between 2012 and 2022 to analyze the state of the art of surgical techniques and indications, as well as potential technical, oncological, and functional benefits.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The indications for TaTME are not yet standardized, and structured training programs are necessary to complete a safe learning curve for this new technique. The procedure, when compared with conventional open or minimally invasive TME, is feasible and safe with similar intraoperative and postoperative complications. On the other hand, some new specific complications of this new approach have been described. The short-term pathological and oncologic results are encouraging, especially in terms of the mesorectal specimen quality, distal resection margin and conversion rate. Also, the functional results seem encouraging when compared with other minimally invasive techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
Long-term follow-up and ongoing RCT trials are fundamental to evaluate the possible benefits in terms of local recurrence and survival. This will facilitate the comparison with other minimally invasive rectal resections.
Topics: Humans; Rectum; Laparoscopy; Treatment Outcome; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 36745469
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5691.22.09837-9