-
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 -
Surgical Endoscopy Sep 2022The standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal technique. No clear consensus exists regarding the length of the learning curve for the minimal invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the learning curve of minimal invasive TME.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies with the primary or secondary aim to assess the learning curve of either laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was length of the learning curve per minimal invasive technique. Descriptive statistics were used to present results and the MINORS tool was used to assess risk of bias.
RESULTS
45 studies, with 7562 patients, were included in this systematic review. Length of the learning curve based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, or a composite endpoint using a risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was 50 procedures for the laparoscopic technique, 32-75 procedures for the robot-assisted technique and 36-54 procedures for the transanal technique. Due to the low quality of studies and a high level of heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be performed. Heterogeneity was caused by patient-related factors, surgeon-related factors and differences in statistical methods.
CONCLUSION
Current high-quality literature regarding length of the learning curve of minimal invasive TME techniques is scarce. Available literature suggests equal lengths of the learning curves of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal TME. Well-designed studies, using adequate statistical methods are required to properly assess the learning curve, while taking into account patient-related and surgeon-related factors.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Learning Curve; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Robotics; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35697853
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09087-z -
Surgical Endoscopy Apr 2022Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to summarize best evidence and develop a rapid guideline using transparent, trustworthy, and standardized methodology.
METHODS
We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE, G-I-N, and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of four general surgeons practicing colorectal surgery, a radiologist with expertise in rectal cancer, a radiation oncologist, a pathologist, and a patient representative. We conducted a systematic review and the results of evidence synthesis by means of meta-analyses were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus.
RESULTS
This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation for the use of TaTME over laparoscopic or robotic TME for low rectal cancer when expertise is available. Furthermore, it details evidence gaps to be addressed by future research and discusses policy considerations. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494 .
CONCLUSIONS
This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the use of TaTME for rectal cancer.
Topics: GRADE Approach; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 35212821
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09090-4 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Nov 2021Resection of low rectal adenocarcinoma can be challenging in the narrow pelvis of male patients. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to offer technical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?
BACKGROUND
Resection of low rectal adenocarcinoma can be challenging in the narrow pelvis of male patients. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to offer technical advantages for distal rectal tumours, and robotic-assisted transabdominal TME (rTME) was introduced in effort to improve operative precision and ergonomics. However, no study has comprehensively compared these approaches. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare postoperative short-term outcomes in rTME and TaTME.
METHODS
A systematic online search (1974-July 2020) of MEDLINE, Embase, web of science and google scholar was conducted for trials, prospective or retrospective studies involving rTME, or TaTME for rectal cancer. Outcome variables included: hospital stay; operation duration, blood loss; resection margins; proportion of histologically complete resected specimens; lymph nodes; overall complications; anastomotic leak, and 30-day mortality.
RESULTS
Sixty-two articles met the inclusion criteria, including 37 studies (3835 patients) assessing rTME resection, 23 studies (1326 patients) involving TaTME and 2 comparing both (165 patients). Operating time was longer in rTME (309.2 min, 95% CI 285.5-332.8) than in TaTME studies (256.2 min, 95% CI 231.5-280.9) (p = 0.002). rTME resected specimens had a larger distal resection margin (2.62 cm, 95% CI 2.35-2.88) than in TaTME studies (2.10 cm, 95% CI 1.83-2.36) (p = 0.007). Other outcome variables did not significantly differ between the two techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
rTME provides similar pathological and short-term outcomes to TaTME and both are reasonable surgical approaches for patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer. To definitively answer the question of the optimal TME technique, we suggest a prospective trial comparing both techniques assessing long-term survival as a primary outcome.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prospective Studies; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34562160
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-021-02515-7 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Oct 2021Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a surgical approach for treating mid to low rectal cancer as well as other colorectal diseases. Since the procedure is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a surgical approach for treating mid to low rectal cancer as well as other colorectal diseases. Since the procedure is difficult to master, perioperative complications of TaTME should be examined precisely, especially during the early implementation phase of this procedure. The primary aim of this review was to determine a pooled morbidity and anastomotic leakage (AL) rate after TaTME surgery, and the secondary aim was to show the completeness of reporting of complications among the included studies, as well as the correlation between completeness and reported incidence of complications.
METHOD
A systematic review of literature was conducted using Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases, searching for observational studies reporting on complications after TaTME. Studies published between 1 January 2010 and 15 October 2019 were included. Meta-analysis on the proportion of morbidity, AL and intraoperative complications was performed.
RESULTS
Forty-one studies (2446 TaTME cases), consisting of 27 noncomparative studies and 14 comparative studies, were included, after screening 1711 possible studies. The pooled rates of overall morbidity and AL were 30.0% (95% CI 26.4%-34.0%) and 6.8% (95% CI 5.2%-8.9%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the morbidity rate in studies that reported 30-day results (35.5%; 95% CI 31.8%-39.4%) was significantly higher than the rate in studies that did not define the follow-up length for complications (23.4%; 95% CI 17.8%-30.1%; p = 0.003). The rates of intraoperative urethral injury, rectal injury, vaginal injury and bladder injury were 0.3% (95% CI 0.1%-1.7%), 0.4% (95% CI 0.1%-2.2%), 0.3% (95% CI 0.1%-0.8%) and 0.3% (95% CI 0.1%-1.7%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis shows that pooled perioperative complication rates were within acceptable ranges. However, the significant difference in overall morbidity rate between the studies with 30-day results and the studies without a specified follow-up time, indicates a large under-reporting of complications in many studies.
Topics: Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34174138
DOI: 10.1111/codi.15792 -
Surgical Endoscopy May 2022Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to have favorable surgical and pathological outcomes. However, the evidence on survival outcomes remains unclear. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to have favorable surgical and pathological outcomes. However, the evidence on survival outcomes remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to compare long-term oncologic outcomes of TaTME with transabdominal TME for rectal cancer.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Data were pooled, and overall effect size was calculated using random-effects models. Outcome measures were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local and distant recurrence.
RESULTS
We included 11 nonrandomized studies that examined 2,143 patients for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the two groups in OS, DFS, and local and distant recurrence with a RR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.39-1.09, I = 0%), 0.79 (95% CI 0.57-1.10, I = 0%), 1.14 (95% CI 0.44-2.91, I = 66%), and 0.75 (95% CI 0.40-1.41, I = 0%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
In terms of long-term oncologic outcomes, TaTME may be an alternative to transabdominal TME in patients with rectal cancer. Well-designed randomized trials are warranted to further verify these results.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34169371
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08615-7 -
Minerva Surgery Apr 2022Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal endoscopic operation (TEO) have been initially described for local excision of rectal adenomas and selected cases...
INTRODUCTION
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal endoscopic operation (TEO) have been initially described for local excision of rectal adenomas and selected cases of rectal carcinomas. In the past decade, however, several new indications raised, and others could raise in the future. The aim of this review was to evaluate, both in the literature and in our personal experience, the use of TEM and TEO for non-conventional applications, different from rectal tumors.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We conducted a systematic review of published papers and we selected articles reporting patients who underwent endoscopic surgery for other medical reason than polyp cancer resection, with TEM or TEO. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and bibliographies of the selected studies were searched for articles in English published up to May 2020 to identify all relevant articles. We excluded articles reporting TEM and TEO used for classical indications. We finally report our experience of non-conventional use of TEO in 5 patients with different diseases.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The research revealed 800 papers and among them we selected 52 articles for a total of 697 patients. Of all patients, only 52 had intraoperative or postoperative complications, with only 10 patients requiring major surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that TEM and TEO may be valid alternatives to traditional surgery in situations other than its classical indication. These findings can positively impact on the care of patients, who could benefit from less invasive surgical procedures associated with lower morbidity.
Topics: Adenoma; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Endoscopy; Humans; Rectal Neoplasms; Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery
PubMed: 34047531
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5691.21.08774-8