-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 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 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