IRIS U kit usefulness in transanal total mesorectal excision for lower rectal cancer to avoid urethral injury.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has improved the laparoscopic dissection for rectal cancer in the narrow pelvis. Although taTME has more clinical benefits than laparoscopic surgery, such as a better view of the distal rectum and direct determination of distal resection margin, an intraoperative urethral injury could occur in excision ta-TME. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and efficacy of the ta-TME with IRIS U kit surgery. This retrospective study enrolled 10 rectal cancer patients who underwent a taTME with an IRIS U kit. The study endpoints were the safety of access (intra- or postoperative morbidity). The detectability of the IRIS U kit catheter was investigated by using a laparoscope-ICG fluorescence camera system. Their mean age was 71.4±6.4 (58-78) years; 80 were men, and 2 were women. The mean operative time was 534.6 ± 94.5 min. The coloanal anastomosis was performed in 80%, and 20% underwent abdominal peritoneal resection. Two patients encountered postoperative complications graded as Clavien-Dindo grade 2. The transanal approach with IRIS U kit assistance is feasible, safe for patients with lower rectal cancer, and may prevent intraoperative urethral injury.

Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (R-TAMIS): current evidence in the treatment of early rectal neoplasia.

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.

Solitary fibrous tumor within the mesorectum: literature review based on a case report of resection by transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS).

PURPOSE: Solitary fibrous tumors (SFT) are a rare entity of in majority benign neoplasms. Nevertheless, up to 20% of cases show a malignant tendency with local infiltration or metastasis. Commonly arising in the thoracic cavity, only few cases of SFT of the mesorectal tissue have been reported in the literature. Complete surgical resection, classically by posterior approach, is the treatment of choice. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate the safety and suitability of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) as a surgical approach for the resection of benign pararectal solid tumors. METHODS: We report the case of a 52-year-old man who was diagnosed incidentally with SFT of the distal mesorectum. Resection by TAMIS was performed. Based on this case, we describe the steps and potential benefits of this procedure and provide a comprehensive review of the literature. RESULTS: Histopathology confirms the completely resected SFT. After uneventful postoperative course and discharge on day four, follow-up was recommended by a multidisciplinary board by clinical examination and MRI, which showed a well-healed scar and no recurrence up to 3 years after resection. CONCLUSION: SFT of the mesorectum is a very rare entity. To our knowledge, this is the first report on a TAMIS resection for SFT, demonstrated as a safe approach for complete resection of benign pararectal solid tumors.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological outcomes with transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

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%, I2 = 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, I2 = 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.

Transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.

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.

Permanent stoma rate and long-term stoma complications in laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The surgical resection of rectal carcinoma is associated with a high risk of permanent stoma rate. Primary anastomosis rate is suggested to be higher in robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision, but permanent stoma rate is unknown. METHODS: Patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for MRI-defined rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in 11 centers highly experienced in laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision were included in this retrospective study. Permanent stoma rate, stoma-related complications, readmissions, and reoperations were registered. A multivariable regression analysis was performed for permanent stoma rate, stoma-related complications, and stoma-related reoperations. RESULTS: In total, 1198 patients were included. Permanent stoma rate after low anterior resection (with anastomosis or with an end colostomy) was 40.1% in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, 21.3% in patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery, and 25.6% in patients undergoing transanal surgery (P < 0.001). Permanent stoma rate after low anterior resection with an anastomosis was 17.3%, 11.8%, and 15.1%, respectively. The robot-assisted and transanal techniques were independently associated with a reduction in permanent stoma rate in patients who underwent a low anterior resection (with anastomosis or with an end colostomy) (OR 0.39 [95% CI 0.25, 0.59] and OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.22, 0.55]), while this was not seen in patients who underwent a restorative low anterior resection. 45.4% of the patients who had a stoma experienced stoma-related complications, 4.0% were at least once readmitted, and 8.9% underwent at least one reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: The robot-assisted and transanal techniques are associated with a lower permanent stoma rate in patients who underwent a low anterior resection.

Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (r-TAMIS): perioperative and short-term outcomes for local excision of rectal cancers.

BACKGROUND: Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is an advanced technique for excision of early rectal cancers. Robotic TAMIS (r-TAMIS) has been introduced as technical improvement and potential alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in early rectal cancers and in frail patients. This study reports the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of r-TAMIS for local excision of early-stage rectal cancers. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected r-TAMIS database (July 2021-July 2023). Demographics, clinicopathological features, short-term outcomes, recurrences, and survival were investigated. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included. Median age and body mass index were 69.5 (62.0-77.7) years and 31.0 (21.0-36.5) kg/m2. Male sex was prevalent (n = 12, 60.0%). ASA III accounted for 66.7%. Median distance from anal verge was 7.5 (5.0-11.7) cm. Median operation time was 90.0 (60.0-112.5) minutes. Blood loss was minimal. There were no conversions. Median postoperative stay was 2.0 (1.0-3.0) days. Minor and major complication rates were 25.0% and 0%, respectively. Seventeen (85.0%) patients had an adenocarcinoma whilst three patients had an adenoma. R0 rate was 90.0%. Most tumours were pT1 (55.0%), followed by pT2 (25.0%). One patient (5.0%) had a pT3 tumour. Specimen and tumour maximal median diameter were 51.0 (41.0-62.0) mm and 21.5 (17.2-42.0) mm, respectively. Median specimen area was 193.1 (134.3-323.3) cm2. Median follow-up was 15.5 (10.0-24.0) months. One patient developed local recurrence (5.0%). CONCLUSIONS: r-TAMIS, with strict postoperative surveillance, is a safe and feasible approach for local excision of early rectal cancer and may have a role in surgically unfit and elderly patients who refuse or cannot undergo TME surgery. Future prospective multicentre large-scale studies are needed to report the long-term oncological outcomes.

Transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of technical approaches and clinical outcomes.

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.

Duhamel and transanal endorectal pull-throughs for Hirschsprung disease: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To comprehensively compare the effects of open Duhamel (OD), laparoscopic-assisted Duhamel (LD), transanal endorectal pull-through (TEPT), and laparoscopic-assisted endorectal pull-through (LEPT) in Hirschsprung disease. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP were comprehensively searched up to August 4, 2022. The outcomes were operation-related indicators and complication-related indicators. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Network plots, forest plots, league tables and rank probabilities were drawn for all outcomes. For measurement data, weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs) were reported; for enumeration data, relative risks (RRs) and 95%CrIs were calculated. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies of 4781 patients were included, with 2039 TEPT patients, 1669 LEPT patients, 951 OD patients and 122 LD patients. Intraoperative blood loss in the OD group was more than that in the LEPT group (pooled WMD = 44.00, 95%CrI: 27.33, 60.94). Patients lost more blood during TEPT versus LEPT (pooled WMD = 13.08, 95%CrI: 1.80, 24.30). In terms of intraoperative blood loss, LEPT was most likely to be the optimal procedure (79.76%). Patients undergoing OD had significantly longer gastrointestinal function recovery time, as compared with those undergoing LEPT (pooled WMD = 30.39, 95%CrI: 16.08, 44.94). The TEPT group had significantly longer gastrointestinal function recovery time than the LEPT group (pooled WMD = 11.49, 95%CrI: 0.96, 22.05). LEPT was most likely to be the best operation regarding gastrointestinal function recovery time (98.28%). Longer hospital stay was observed in patients with OD versus LEPT (pooled WMD = 5.24, 95%CrI: 2.98, 7.47). Hospital stay in the TEPT group was significantly longer than that in the LEPT group (pooled WMD = 1.99, 95%CrI: 0.37, 3.58). LEPT had the highest possibility to be the most effective operation with respect to hospital stay. The significantly reduced incidence of complications was found in the LEPT group versus the LD group (pooled RR = 0.24, 95%CrI: 0.12, 0.48). Compared with LEPT, OD was associated with a significantly increased incidence of complications (pooled RR = 5.10, 95%CrI: 3.48, 7.45). Patients undergoing TEPT had a significantly greater incidence of complications than those undergoing LEPT (pooled RR = 1.98, 95%CrI: 1.63, 2.42). For complications, LEPT is most likely to have the best effect (99.99%). Compared with the LEPT group, the OD group had a significantly increased incidence of anastomotic leakage (pooled RR = 5.35, 95%CrI: 1.45, 27.68). LEPT had the highest likelihood to be the best operation regarding anastomotic leakage (63.57%). The incidence of infection in the OD group was significantly higher than that in the LEPT group (pooled RR = 4.52, 95%CrI: 2.45, 8.84). The TEPT group had a significantly increased incidence of infection than the LEPT group (pooled RR = 1.87, 95%CrI: 1.13, 3.18). LEPT is most likely to be the best operation concerning infection (66.32%). Compared with LEPT, OD was associated with a significantly higher incidence of soiling (pooled RR = 1.91, 95%CrI: 1.16, 3.17). Patients with LEPT had the greatest likelihood not to develop soiling (86.16%). In contrast to LD, LEPT was significantly more effective in reducing the incidence of constipation (pooled RR = 0.39, 95%CrI: 0.15, 0.97). LEPT was most likely not to result in constipation (97.81%). LEPT was associated with a significantly lower incidence of Hirschprung-associated enterocolitis (HAEC) than LD (pooled RR = 0.34, 95%CrI: 0.13, 0.85). The OD group had a significantly higher incidence of HAEC than the LEPT group (pooled RR = 2.29, 95%CrI: 1.31, 4.0). The incidence of HAEC was significantly greater in the TEPT group versus the LEPT group (pooled RR = 1.74, 95%CrI: 1.24, 2.45). LEPT was most likely to be the optimal operation in terms of HAEC (98.76%). CONCLUSION: LEPT may be a superior operation to OD, LD and TEPT in improving operation condition and complications, which might serve as a reference for Hirschsprung disease treatment.

Minimally invasive approach for retrorectal tumors above and below S3: a multicentric tertiary center retrospective study (MiaRT study).

BACKGROUND: Retrorectal tumors are uncommon lesions developed in the retrorectal space. Data on their minimally invasive resection are scarce and the optimal surgical approach for tumors below S3 remains debated. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive resection of retrorectal tumors between 2005 and 2022 at two tertiary university hospital centers, by comparing the results obtained for lesions located above or below S3. RESULTS: Of over 41 patients identified with retrorectal tumors, surgical approach was minimally invasive for 23 patients, with laparoscopy alone in 19, with transanal excision in 2, and with combined approach in 2. Retrorectal tumor was above S3 in 11 patients (> S3 group) and below S3 in 12 patients (< S3 group). Patient characteristics and median tumor size were not significantly different between the two groups (60 vs 67 mm; p = 0.975). Overall median operative time was 131.5 min and conversion rate was 13% without significant difference between the two groups (126 vs 197 min and 18% vs 8%, respectively; p > 0.05). Final pathology was tailgut cyst (48%), schwannoma (22%), neural origin tumor (17%), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (4%), and other (19%). The 90-day complication rates were 27% and 58% in the > S3 and < S3 groups, respectively, without severe morbidity or mortality. After a median follow-up of 3.3 years, no recurrence was observed in both groups. Three patients presented chronic pain, three anal dysfunction, and three urinary dysfunction. All were successfully managed without reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery for retrorectal tumors can be performed safely and effectively with low morbidity and no mortality. Laparoscopic and transanal techniques alone or in combination may be recommended as the treatment of choice of benign retrorectal tumors, even for lesions below S3, in centers experienced with minimally invasive surgery.

Morbidity, Mortality, and Pathologic Outcomes of Transanal Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer Short-term Outcomes From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the morbidity, mortality, and pathologic outcomes of transanal total mesorectal resection (taTME) versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME) among patients with rectal cancer with clinical stage I to III rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection. BACKGROUND: Studies with sufficient numbers of patients allowing clinical acceptance of taTME for rectal cancer are lacking. Thus, we launched a randomized clinical trial to compare the safety and efficacy of taTME versus laTME. METHODS: A randomized, open-label, phase 3, noninferiority trial was performed at 16 different hospitals in 10 Chinese provinces. The primary endpoints were 3-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival. The morbidity and mortality within 30 days after surgery, and pathologic outcomes were compared based on a modified intention-to-treat principle; this analysis was preplanned. RESULTS: Between April 13, 2016, and June 1, 2021, 1115 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive taTME or laTME. After exclusion of 26 cases, modified intention-to-treat set of taTME versus laTME groups included 544 versus 545 patients. There were no significant differences between taTME and laTME groups in intraoperative complications [26 (4.8%) vs 33 (6.1%); difference, -1.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -4.2% to 1.7%; P =0.42], postoperative morbidity [73 (13.4%) vs 66 (12.1%); difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 5.2%; P =0.53), or mortality [1 (0.2%) vs 1 (0.2%)]. Successful resection occurred in 538 (98.9%) versus 538 (98.7%) patients in taTME versus laTME groups (difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 2.2%; P >0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Experienced surgeons can safely perform taTME in selected patients with rectal cancer.

Transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer (Ta-LaTME study): multicentre, randomized, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a minimally invasive surgical technique that tries to avoid conversion to open surgery. However, specific intraoperative complications and local recurrences have cast some doubt on the suitability of the technique. The primary endpoint of the present study was a composite outcome of conversion surgery. Secondary objectives were to assess postoperative recovery, and pathological and oncological outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, randomized, controlled open-label study of patients diagnosed with mid and low rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent laparoscopic TaTME or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME). The TaTME technique comprised intracorporeal resection and anastomosis. Main outcomes were conversion to open surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity, mortality, pathological, oncological results, and survival. Modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol analyses were performed. RESULTS: The study was conducted between April 2015 and May 2021. Patients were randomized to the LaTME (57 patients) or TaTME (59) group. Fifty patients from the LaTME group and 55 from the TaTME group were eligible for mITT analysis. The procedure was converted to open surgery in 11 patients (11 per cent): 10 (20 per cent) in the LaTME group and 1 (2 per cent) in the laparoscopic TaTME group (difference 18.8, 95 per cent c.i. 30 to 7; P = 0.003). No significant differences were found in terms of postoperative recovery and morbidity at 30 days; nor were there significant differences in anastomotic leakage, although it was less common in laparoscopic TaTME. With a median follow-up of 39 months, there were three instances of local recurrence (6.1 per cent) in the LaTME group and one (1.8 per cent) in the laparoscopic TaTME group (95 per cent c.i. 60 to 69; P = 0.3). Registration number: NCT02550769 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). CONCLUSION: The conversion rate was significantly lower in laparoscopic TaTME than in LaTME. At centres with experienced surgeons, laparoscopic TaTME can avoid conversion to open surgery.

Clinical Experience of a Smart Articulating Digital Device for Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The constrained access associated with transanal minimally invasive surgery has led surgeons to deploy robotic-assisted platforms to offset inherent maneuverability limitations and, perhaps, skills deficits. IMPACT OF INNOVATION: A handheld, powered 5-mm lightweighted laparoendoscopic electromechanical digital device (HandX, HumanXtensions, Israel) with hardware and software components that convert surgical hand movements precisely to the instrument's articulating tip and enable robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery with full tip roticulation for hook diathermy and suturing. TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: After bench and biomedical model training, HandX was used in 3 transanal minimally invasive surgery procedures (2 male patients and 1 female patient, mean age 66.3 years). The rectal lesions averaged 30 mm in maximum dimension and were located posteriorly (n = 2) and laterally (n = 1) a mean of 3 cm from the anal verge. Standard transanal minimally invasive surgery setup and instrumentation (Gelport Path, Applied Medical with Airseal, and Conmed) were used, adding the HandX device for circumferential lesion marking and hemostatic full-thickness excision as well as defect suturing where appropriate. PRELIMINARY RESULTS: All procedures were completed without undue prolongation (operating times <1 hour) despite nuisance hemorrhoidal bleeding in 1 patient. All lesions were fully excised, with 2 being T1 cancers and 1 tubulovillous adenoma with high-grade dysplasia. All patients were discharged within 48 hours postoperatively (1 experienced secondary hemorrhage on postoperative day 5). CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS: HandX capably facilitated endoscopic robot-like instrument movement for transanal minimally invasive surgery without disrupting workflows. With time dedicated to instrument understanding and training, HandX increased dexterity with a small operating room footprint and may offer greater cost-effectiveness than other platforms.

Oncological Outcomes of Transanal Endoscopic Surgery for the Surgical Management of T2 and T3 Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Transanal endoscopic surgery is an organ-sparing treatment for early rectal cancer. Patients with advanced lesions are recommended for total mesorectal excision. However, some patients have prohibitive comorbidities or refuse major surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cancer outcomes of patients with T2 or T3 rectal cancers who received transanal endoscopic surgery as their sole surgical treatment. DESIGN: This study used a prospectively maintained database. SETTING: A tertiary hospital in Canada. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent transanal endoscopic surgery for pathology-confirmed T2 or T3 rectal adenocarcinomas from 2007-2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease-free survival and overall survival, stratified by tumor stage and reason for transanal endoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Among the included 132 patients (T2, n = 96; T3, n = 36), average follow-up was 22 months. Twenty-eight decline oncologic resection, whereas 104 had preclusive comorbidities. Fifteen patients (11.4%) had disease recurrence (4 local, 11 metastatic). Three-year disease-free survival was 86.5% (95% CI, 77.1-95.9) for T2 and 67.9% (95% CI, 46.3-89.5) for T3 tumors. Mean disease-free survival was longer for T2 (75.0 mo; 95% CI, 67.8-82.1) compared to T3 cancers (50 mo; 95% CI, 37.7-62.3; p = 0.037). Three-year disease-free survival for patients who declined radical excision was 84.0% (95% CI, 67.1-100) versus 80.7% (95% CI, 69.7-91.7) in patients too comorbid for surgery. Three-year overall survival rate was 84.9% (95% CI, 73.9-95.9) for T2 and 49.0% (95% CI, 26.7-71.3) for T3 tumors. Patients who declined radical resection had similar 3-year overall survival (89.7%; 95% CI, 76.2-100) compared to patients who were unable to undergo excision because of medical comorbidities (98.1%; 95% CI, 95.6-100). LIMITATIONS: Small sample, single institution, and surgeon experience. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologic outcomes are compromised in patients treated by transanal endoscopic surgery for T2 and T3 rectal cancer. Transanal endoscopic surgery remains an option for informed patients who prefer to avoid radical resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C200 . RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS DE LA CIRUGA ENDOSCPICA TRANSANAL PARA EL MANEJO QUIRRGICO DEL CNCER DE RECTO T Y T: ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía endoscópica transanal es un tratamiento de conservación de órganos para el cáncer de recto en estadio temprano. A los pacisentes con lesiones avanzadas se les recomienda la escisión total del mesorrecto. Sin embargo, algunos pacientes tienen comorbilidades prohibitivas o rechazan una cirugía mayor.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los resultados del cáncer de pacientes con cáncer de recto T2 o T3 que recibieron cirugía endoscópica transanal como único tratamiento quirúrgico.DISEÑO:Este estudio utilizó una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente.ENTORNO CLINICO:Un hospital terciario en CanadáPACIENTES:Aquellos que se sometieron a cirugía endoscópica transanal por adenocarcinomas rectales T2 o T3 confirmados por patología de 2007-2020. Se excluyeron los pacientes cuya cirugía se realizó por recurrencia del cáncer o posteriormente fueron sometidos a resección radical.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Supervivencia libre de enfermedad y supervivencia global, estratificada por estadio del tumor y motivo de la cirugía endoscópica transanal.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 132 pacientes (T2, n = 96; T3, n = 36). El seguimiento medio fue de 22 meses (DE ± 23,4). 104 pacientes tenían comorbilidades significativas, mientras que 28 rechazaron la resección oncológica. Quince pacientes (11,4%) tuvieron recurrencia de la enfermedad (4 locales, 11 metastásicos). La supervivencia libre de enfermedad a los tres años para los tumores T2 fue del 86,5 % (IC del 95%: 77,1-95,9) y del 67,9% (IC del 95%: 46,3-89,5) para los tumores T3. La supervivencia libre de enfermedad media fue más prolongada para los cánceres T2 (75,0 meses, IC del 95%: 67,8 a 82,1) en comparación con los cánceres T3 (50 meses, IC del 95%: 37,7 a 62,3, p = 0,037). La supervivencia sin enfermedad a los tres años para los pacientes que rechazaron la escisión mesorrectal total fue del 84,0% (IC del 95%: 67,1-100), mientras que los pacientes con demasiada comorbilidad médica para la cirugía tuvieron una supervivencia sin enfermedad a los tres años del 80,7% (IC del 95%: 69.7-91.7). La supervivencia general a los tres años fue del 84,9% (IC del 95%: 73,9 a 95,9) para los tumores T2 y del 49,0% (IC del 95%: 26,7 a 71,3) para los tumores T3. Los pacientes que rechazaron la resección radical tuvieron una supervivencia general similar a los tres años (89,7%, IC del 95%: 76,2-100), en comparación con los pacientes que no pudieron someterse a una escisión mesorrectal total debido a comorbilidades médicas (98,1%, IC del 95%: 95,6-100).LIMITACIONES:Muestra pequeña, institución única, experiencia del cirujano.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados oncológicos están comprometidos en pacientes tratados con cirugía endoscópica transanal por cáncer de recto T2 y T3. Sin embargo, la cirugía endoscópica transanal sigue siendo una opción para pacientes informados que prefieren evitar la resección radical. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C200 . (Traducción-Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

Natural Orifice Transanal Endoscopic Rectopexy for Complete Rectal Prolapse: Prospective Evolution of a New Technique and Short-term Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Endoluminal surgery for the management of rectal prolapse remains largely experimental. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evolution and short-term outcomes of a new endoluminal technique for the management of complete rectal prolapse. DESIGN: This was a prospective study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a single tertiary care teaching center. PATIENTS: A total of 29 patients were included. The first 12 patients underwent the procedure with our initial technique, and the last 17 patients were subjected to the new modified procedure. The follow-up duration was 3 years for the older technique and 26 months for the newer technique. INTERVENTION: This technique involves: 1) ventral "suture" rectopexy: rectum is fixed anteriorly to the anterior abdominal wall using percutaneously placed sutures. 2) Posterior rectum is fixed to the sacral promontory using tackers through a submucosal tunnel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety, recurrence, functional outcomes, morbidity, and mortality were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: There were improvements in constipation and incontinence scores, anal manometric pressures, anorectal angle, anorectal descent, and quality of life postoperatively in both groups. In patients undergoing the modified procedure, there was a significant decrease in duration of surgery (220 ± 48.89 vs 110 ± 12.51 min), shortened hospital stay (4.6 ± 1.71 vs 2.6 ± 0.65 d), decreased recurrence (25% vs 5.8%), and complications (surgical-site infection and retrorectal abscess). LIMITATIONS: Short follow-up, small sample size, and single-center study were the limitations. CONCLUSION: This is a novel endoluminal technique for treating rectal prolapse obviating perirectal dissection, abdominal incisions, or a mesh. This can now be performed under complete endoscopic and fluoroscopic vision. It avoids general anesthesia and therefore can be an alternative for patients with comorbid conditions in whom the standard abdominal procedure may not be well tolerated. Larger randomized multicentric studies with longer follow-ups are warranted. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C59. RECTOPEXIA ENDOSCPICA TRANSANAL POR ORIFICIO NATURAL PARA EL PROLAPSO RECTAL COMPLETO EVOLUCIN PROSPECTIVA DE UNA NUEVA TCNICA Y RESULTADOS A CORTO PLAZO: ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía endoluminal para el tratamiento del prolapso rectal ha permanecido en gran parte experimental.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar la evolución y los resultados a corto plazo de una nueva técnica endoluminal para el manejo del prolapso rectal completo.DISEÑO:Estudio prospectivo.ÁMBITOS:Único centro docente de tercer nivel de atención.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron un total de 29 pacientes (19 hombres y 10 mujeres) con prolapso rectal completo. Los primeros 12 pacientes fueron sometidos al procedimiento con nuestra técnica anteriormente descrita y los últimos 17 pacientes fueron sometidos al nuevo procedimiento modificado. La duración del seguimiento es de 3 años para la técnica más antigua y de 26 meses para la técnica más nueva.INTERVENCIÓN:Esta técnica implica: A) Rectopexia de "sutura" ventral: el recto se fija anteriormente a la pared abdominal anterior mediante suturas colocadas percutáneamente. B) El recto posterior se fija al promontorio sacro mediante grapas a través de un túnel submucoso.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Seguridad, recurrencia, resultados funcionales, morbilidad y mortalidad.RESULTADOS:Hubo mejorías en las puntuaciones de estreñimiento (ODS) e incontinencia (SMIS), presiones manométricas anales (reposo y contracción), ángulo anorrectal, descenso anorrectal y calidad de vida post operatoria en ambos grupos. En los pacientes sometidos al procedimiento modificado hubo una significativa disminución en la duración de la cirugía (220 + 48,89 vs 110 + 12,51 minutos), acortamiento de la estancia hospitalaria (4,6 + 1,71 vs 2,6 + 0,65 días), disminución de la recurrencia (25% vs 5,8%) y complicaciones (infecciónes del sitio quirúrgico y abscesos retrorrectales).LIMITACIONES:Seguimiento corto, tamaño de muestra pequeña, estudio de un solo centro.CONCLUSIÓNES:La rectopexia endoscópica transanal por orificio natural (NOTER) es una novedosa técnica endoluminal para el tratamiento del prolapso rectal que evita la disección perirrectal, las incisiones abdominales o la fijación de una malla. Este procedimiento puede realizar hoy día bajo visión completa endoscópica y fluoroscópica. Evita la anestesia general y, por lo tanto, puede ser una alternativa para pacientes con condiciones comórbidas donde el procedimiento abdominal estándar puede no ser bien tolerado. Se justifican estudios multicéntricos aleatorios más grandes con un seguimiento más prolongado para validar aún más esta nueva técnica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C59. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgical Submucosal Dissection for Recurrent Rectal Adenomas.

BACKGROUND: The local resection of recurrent rectal adenomas is a technically challenging task associated with increased local recurrence rate. Transanal endoscopic microsurgical submucosal dissection (TEM-ESD) uses traction to better expose the fibrotic submucosal layer, and therefore, is a valuable alternative for the treatment of such lesions. The aim of our study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of TEM-ESD for the resection of recurrent rectal adenomas. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all TEM-ESD procedures performed in the Karlsruhe Municipal Hospital between 2012 and 2021 and isolated all cases of recurrent adenomas. Subsequently, we matched these cases 1:1 to TEM-ESD cases for primary rectal adenomas according to the size, localization, and histological type of the lesions and compared the outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: We identified 19 cases matching our criteria. The median diameter of the lesions was 25 mm and the median operating time 39 min. Macroscopic en bloc resection was achieved in 100% of the cases and histological complete en bloc resection in 78.9%. There was 1 case of conservatively treated postoperative bleeding. After a median follow-up period of 36 months, there was one local recurrence. After comparing those findings to the outcomes of TEM-ESD for primary rectal lesions, we found no significant differences on total operating time, complete en bloc resection rates, adverse events, and local recurrence. CONCLUSION: TEM-ESD is a feasible therapeutic option for the resection of recurrent rectal adenomas, offering short operating times as well as high en bloc resection and low recurrence rates.

A prospective phase II clinical trial/IDEAL Stage 2a series of single-port robotic colorectal surgery for abdominal and transanal cases.

AIM: Slow laparoscopy adoption accelerated the uptake of robotic surgery. However, the current robotic platforms have limitations in transanal applications and multiple port sites. The da Vinci single-port (SP) robot is currently used on trial for colorectal surgery, and broad assessment of outcomes is needed. We aimed to report findings of a phase II clinical trial of SP robotic colorectal surgery. METHODS: A sequentially reported prospective case series was performed on patients using SP robotics at a tertiary referral centre from 1 October 2018 to 31 August 2021. Cases were stratified into abdominal and transanal cohorts. Demographics, intra-operative variables and 30-day postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Univariate analysis was performed, with statistical process control for the docking process. Main outcomes were conversion rates, morbidity, mortality and point of standardization of docking. RESULTS: In all, 133 patients were included: 93 (69.92%) abdominal and 40 (30.08%) transanal. The main diagnosis was rectal cancer (n = 59) and the procedure performed a robotic transanal abdominal transanal radical proctosigmoidectomy (n = 30). There were no conversions to open surgery. Two abdominal (2.15%) and three transanal cases (7.50%) were converted to laparoscopy. All colorectal adenocarcinomas had negative margins, proper lymph node harvest and complete mesorectal excision, as appropriate. Docking became a standardized process at cases 34 (abdominal) and 23 (anorectal). After surgery, bowel function returned on mean day 2 (abdominal) and 1 (transanal). The morbidity rate was 15.05% (abdominal) and 27.50% (transanal). There were two major morbidities in each cohort. Overall, there were three (2.65%) readmissions, one reoperation and no mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Single-port robotics is feasible for all types of colorectal procedures, with good clinical and oncological outcomes. With this development in colorectal surgery, further studies can develop best practices with this novel technology.

Mucosectomy of the anal canal via transanal minimally invasive surgery combined with transanal total mesorectal excision for familial adenomatous polyposis: A technical note.

AIM: Total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the standard surgical treatment modality for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). It is challenging to perform proctectomy and preserve anal sphincter function. In this video, precise mucosectomy of the anal canal via transanal minimally invasive surgery (MAC-TAMIS) is reported. METHODS: An asymptomatic 35-year-old man was found to have a positive faecal occult blood test in routine screening examination and was diagnosed with FAP on colonoscopic examination. The patient was scheduled for total proctocolectomy with IPAA using the TAMIS approach combined with transanal total mesorectal excision. MAC-TAMIS was performed to preserve the internal anal sphincter during laparoscopy. RESULTS: The total duration of surgery was 543 min, blood loss was minimal, and the postoperative course was uneventful. The postoperative hospital stay was 12 days. The pathological findings demonstrated no evidence of malignancy. Gastrographic imaging from the ileostomy showed sufficient size of the J pouch and good tonus of the anus at 6 months after surgery. The Wexner scores at 1, 3 and 6 months after ileostomy closure were 5, 3 and 0, respectively. CONCLUSION: The MAC-TAMIS technique is safe and feasible during total proctocolectomy with IPAA in patients with FAP. This technique allows us to precisely preserve the internal anal sphincter using a laparoscopic approach.

Multicenter phase II trial of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Transanal TME (taTME) combines abdominal and transanal dissection to facilitate sphincter preservation in patients with low rectal tumors. Few phase II/III trials report long-term oncologic and functional results. We report early results from a North American prospective multicenter phase II trial of taTME (NCT03144765). METHODS: 100 patients with stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma located ≤ 10 cm from the anal verge (AV) were enrolled across 11 centers. Primary and secondary endpoints were TME quality, pathologic outcomes, 30-day and 90-day outcomes, and stoma closure rate. Univariable regression analysis was performed to assess risk factors for incomplete TME and anastomotic complications. RESULTS: Between September 2017 and April 2022, 70 males and 30 females with median age of 58 (IQR 49-62) years and BMI 27.8 (IQR 23.9-31.8) kg/m2 underwent 2-team taTME for tumors located a median 5.8 (IQR 4.5-7.0) cm from the AV. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was completed in 69%. Intersphincteric resection was performed in 36% and all patients were diverted. Intraoperative complications occurred in 8% including 3 organ injuries, 2 abdominal and 1 transanal conversion. The 30-day and 90-day morbidity rates were 49% (Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ 3 in 28.6%) and 56% (CD ≥ 3 in 30.4% including 1 mortality), respectively. Anastomotic complications were reported in 18% including 10% diagnosed within 30 days. Higher anastomotic risk was noted among males (p = 0.05). At a median follow-up of 5 (IQR 3.1-7.4) months, 98% of stomas were closed. TME grade was complete or near complete in 90%, with positive margins in 2 cases (3%). Risk factors for incomplete TME were ASA ≥ 3 (p = 0.01), increased time between NRT and surgery (p = 0.03), and higher operative blood loss (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: When performed at expert centers, 2-team taTME in patients with low rectal tumors is safe with low conversion rates and high stoma closure rate. Mid-term results will further evaluate oncologic and functional outcomes.

Transanal total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anus-preserving surgery for low rectal cancer has always been a serious difficulty for surgeons. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) are commonly used Anus-preserving surgeries for low rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical use of two surgical methods. METHODS: A total of 152 patients with low rectal cancer were treated with taTME in 75 cases and ISR in 77 cases. After propensity score matching, 46 patients in each group were included in the study. Perioperative outcomes, anal function scores (Wexner incontinence score) and quality of life scores (EORTC QLQ C30, EORTC QLQ CR38) at least 1 year after surgery were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of surgical outcomes, pathological examination of surgical specimens, postoperative recovery, and postoperative complications, except for patients in the taTME group who had their indwelling catheters removed later. Anal Wexner incontinence score was lower in taTME group than ISR group (P < 0.05). On the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale, the physical function and role function scores in the ISR group were lower than those in the taTME group (P < 0.05), while the fatigue, pain symptoms, and constipation scores in the ISR group were higher than those in the taTME group (P < 0.05). On the EORTC QLQ-CR38 scale, the scores of gastrointestinal symptoms and defecation problems in the ISR group were higher than those in the taTME group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with ISR surgery, taTME surgery is comparable in terms of surgical safety and short-term efficacy, and has better long-term anal function and quality of life. From the perspective of long-term anal function and quality of life, taTME surgery is a better surgical method for the treatment of low rectal cancer.