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.

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.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: A systematic review and 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.

Long-term oncological outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer: a retrospective analysis of 2502 patients.

BACKGROUND: Transanal total mesorectal resection (taTME) has recently emerged as a promising surgical approach for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer. However, there is limited evidence on the long-term survival outcomes associated with taTME. This retrospective study aimed to compare the overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cancer-specific survival of taTME and laparoscopic TME (laTME) in patients with mid-low rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2014 to June 2022, a total of 3627 patients were identified from two prospective cohorts: the laparoscopic rectal surgery cohort and the CNTAES cohort. To balance the baseline characteristics between the taTME and laTME groups, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 2502 patients were included in the study. Prior to PSM, the laTME group comprised 1853 patients, while the taTME group comprised 649 patients. The 5-year OS (82.9% vs. 80.4%, P =0.202) and 5-year DFS (74.4% vs. 72.5%, P =0.167) were comparable between the taTME and laTME groups. After PSM, the taTME group showed no statistically significant difference in the 5-year OS (83.1% vs. 79.2%, P =0.101) and 5-year DFS (74.8% vs. 72.1%, P =0.135) compared to the laTME group. Subgroup analysis further suggested that taTME may potentially reduce the risk of death [hazard ratio 0.652; (95% CI, 0.452-0.939)] and disease recurrence [hazard ratio 0.736; (95% CI, 0.562-0.965)] specifically in patients with low rectal cancer. CONCLUSION: In this study, taTME demonstrated comparable oncologic safety to laTME in patients with mid-low rectal cancer. Moreover, the results indicate that taTME may confer potential survival benefits for patients with low rectal cancer.

Revolutionizing sphincter preservation in ultra-low rectal cancer: exploring the potential of transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection (taE-ISR): a propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: With the optimization of neoadjuvant treatment regimens, the indications for intersphincteric resection (ISR) have expanded. However, limitations such as unclear surgical field, impaired anal function, and failure of anal preservation still exist. Transanal total mesorectal excision can complement the drawbacks of ISR. Therefore, this study combined these two techniques and proposed transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection (taE-ISR), aiming to explore the value of this novel technique in anal preservation for ultra-low rectal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four high-volume centres were involved. After 1:1 propensity score-matching, patients with ultra-low rectal cancer underwent taE-ISR ( n =90) or ISR ( n =90) were included. Baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, pathological results, and follow-up were compared between the two groups. A nomogram model was established to assess the potential risks of anal preservation. RESULTS: The incidence of adjacent organ injury (0.0% vs. 5.6%, P =0.059), positive distal resection margin (1.1% vs. 8.9%, P =0.034), and incomplete specimen (2.2% vs. 13.3%, P =0.012) were lower in taE-ISR group. Moreover, the anal preservation rate was significantly higher in taE-ISR group (97.8% vs. 82.2%, P =0.001). Patients in the taE-ISR group showed a better disease-free survival ( P =0.044) and lower cumulative recurrence ( P =0.022) compared to the ISR group. Surgery procedure, tumour distance, and adjacent organ injury were factors influencing anal preservation in patients with ultra-low rectal cancer. CONCLUSION: taE-ISR technique was safe, feasible, and improved surgical quality, anal preservation rate and survival outcomes in ultra-low rectal cancer patients. It held significant clinical value and showed promising application prospects for anal preservation.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision With Delayed Coloanal Anastomosis (TaTME-DCAA) Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LTME) and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision (RTME) for Low Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Short-term Outcomes, Bowel Function, and Cost.

INTRODUCTION: Total mesorectal excision (TME) with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is surgical option for low rectal cancer, replacing conventional immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with bowel diversion. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of transanal TME (TaTME) with DCAA versus laparoscopic TME (LTME) with ICAA versus robotic TME (RTME) with ICAA. METHODS: This was a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of patients who underwent elective TaTME-DCAA between November 2021 and June 2022. Patients were propensity-score matched in a ratio of 1:3 to patients who underwent LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA from January 2019 to December 2020. Outcome measures were histopathologic results, postoperative morbidity, function, and inpatient costs. RESULTS: Twelve patients in the TaTME-DCAA group were compared with 36 patients in the LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA groups each after propensity score matching. Histopathologic results and postoperative morbidity rates were statistically similar. Overall stoma-related complication rates in the ICAA groups were 11%. Median total length of hospital stays for TME plus stoma reversal surgery was similar across all techniques (10 vs. 10 vs. 9 days; P =0.532). Despite a significantly shorter duration of follow-up, bowel function after TaTME-DCAA was comparable to that of LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA. Overall median inpatient costs of TaTME-DCAA were comparable to LTME-ICAA and significantly cheaper than RTME-ICAA ($31,087 vs. $29,927 vs. $36,750; P =0.002). CONCLUSIONS: TaTME with DCAA is a feasible and safe technique compared with other minimally invasive methods of TME, while avoiding bowel diversion and stoma-related complications, as well as comparing favorably in terms of overall hospitalization costs.

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.