Is survival after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) worse than that after traditional total mesorectal excision? A retrospective propensity score-adjusted cohort study.

PURPOSE: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was developed to provide better vision during resection of the mesorectum. Conflicting results have shown an increase in local recurrence and shorter survival after taTME. This study compared the outcomes of taTME and abdominal (open, laparoscopic, robotic) total mesorectal excision (abTME). METHODS: Patients who underwent taTME or abTME for stages I-III rectal cancer and who received an anastomosis were included. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively conducted database was performed. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Risk factors were adjusted by propensity score matching (PSM). The secondary endpoints were local recurrence rates and combined poor pathological outcomes. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2020, a total of 189 patients underwent taTME, and 119 underwent abTME; patients were followed up for a mean of 54.7 (SD 24.2) and 78.4 (SD 34.8) months, respectively (p < 0.001). The 5-year survival rates after taTME and abTME were not significantly different after PSM: OS: 78.2% vs. 88.6% (p = 0.073), CSS: 87.4% vs. 92.1% (p = 0.359), and DFS: 69.3% vs. 80.9% (p = 0.104), respectively. No difference in the local recurrence rate was observed (taTME, n = 10 (5.3%); abTME, n = 10 (8.4%); p = 0.280). Combined poor pathological outcomes were more frequent after abTME (n = 36, 34.3%) than after taTME (n = 35, 19.6%) (p = 0.006); this difference was nonsignificant according to multivariate analysis (p = 0.404). CONCLUSION: taTME seems to be a good treatment option for patients with rectal cancer and is unlikely to significantly affect local recurrence or survival. However, further investigations concerning the latter are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0496910).

Prophylactic funnel mesh to prevent parastomal hernia in permanent end colostomy: A retrospective cohort study.

AIM: This study assessed the impact of a prophylactic, 3D funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh on the rate of parastomal hernia after abdominoperineal rectum resection with permanent end colostomy. METHODS: Data from 76 patients receiving permanent end colostomy after abdominoperineal rectum resection between 2013 and 2018 were collected retrospectively. Occurrences of parastomal hernia and reoperation rate due to parastomal hernia in patients with and without a prophylactic mesh were compared by univariate, multivariate, and propensity score-adjusted analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-two (28.9%) of the 76 included patients received a prophylactic mesh. The mean follow-up was 39.3 ± 23.8 months. Mesh implantation reduced the incidence of parastomal hernia to 9.1% (n = 2) compared to 42.6% (n = 23) in patients without a prophylactic mesh. The propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.48, p = 0.001). No reoperations due to parastomal hernia were needed in patients who received a prophylactic mesh, while nine patients without mesh (16.7%) required parastomal hernia repair (HR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.00-1.76, p = 0.015). Mesh implantation was not associated with increased short-term morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2, 31.8% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.468) or 30-day mortality (4.5% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic implantation of a 3D funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh is a safe and effective method to prevent parastomal hernia in patients requiring permanent end colostomy. Mesh placement significantly reduces reoperations due to parastomal hernia.

Impact of the new TNM Staging System (8th edition) on oral tongue cancers.

AIM OF THE STUDY: For tumours of the oral tongue, the most recent 8th edition of the AJCC/UICC staging system has introduced depth of infiltration (DOI) as a novel parameter. With this study we wanted to investigate its impact regarding this risk stratification compared with the preceding 7th edition. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2017, 161 patients of two tertiary referral centres in Switzerland (Kantonsspital St. Gallen and University Hospital Zurich) with T1 N0 or T2 N0 tongue cancers were enrolled in this study. The primary tumours were restaged according to the 8th edition of the TNM classification. Kaplan-Meier curves for overall and disease-specific survival were calculated. RESULTS: According to the 7th edition, of the 161 patients, 102 were staged after surgery as pT1 (stage I) and 59 as pT2 (stage II). According to the 8th edition, 36 patients (22.4%) were re-staged to a higher stage. Of these 36 patients, 8 (22.2%) experienced a recurrence, and 9 (25%) died. In the remaining, not re-staged group, 20 patients (16.0%) experienced a recurrence (p = 0.55) and 14 (11.2%) died (p = 0.025*). The 7th edition showed a statistically significant difference between pT1 and pT2 tumours for overall survival (p = 0.025), but not for disease-specific survival (p = 0.091), whereas the 8th edition was able to well discriminate between pT1, pT2 and pT3 for both overall (pT1 vs pT2, p = 0.016*; pT2 vs pT3, p = 0.031*) and disease-specific survival (pT1 vs pT2, p = 0.037*; pT2 vs pT3, p = 0.023*). CONCLUSION: The recent TNM 8th edition provides a more accurate prediction of overall and disease-specific survival for this subgroup of patients. Hence, a more aggressive treatment should be considered for patients re-staged to pT3 due to depth of infiltration.