Transanal total mesorectal excision: short- and long-term results of four certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME), a novel approach for treating low rectal cancer, holds promise. However, concerns exist in certain countries about their oncologic safety due to less-than-optimal outcomes on global studies. This research seeks to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes focusing on local recurrence rate and overall survival after TaTME surgery in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study analyzed data from patients who underwent elective TaTME surgery between 2014 and 2021 in four certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany. Primary endpoints were 3-year local recurrence rate and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Secondary outcomes encompassed overall survival (OS), operative time, completeness of local tumor resection, lymph node resection, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 378 patients were analyzed (mean age 61.6 years; 272 males, 72%). After a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, 326 patients with UICC-stages I-III and tumor operability included in survival analyses. Local recurrence was observed in 8 individuals, leading to a 3-year cumulative local recurrence rate of 2.2% and a 3-year LRFS rate of 88.1%. The 3-year OS rate stood at 88.9%. Within 30 days after surgery, anastomotic leakage occurred in 19 cases (5%), whereas a presacral abscess was present in 12 patients (3.2%). CONCLUSION: TaTME proves effective in addressing the anatomical and technical challenges of low rectal surgery and is associated with pleasing short- and long-term results. However, its safe integration into surgical routine necessitates sufficient knowledge and a previously completed training program.

Peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes of robotic versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Comparative outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (rTME) and trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in patients with low rectal cancer were evaluated. METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Comparative studies of rTME versus TaTME for low rectal cancer were included. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, and Clavien-Dindo complication rate. Total operative time, conversion to open surgery, intra-operative blood loss, intensive therapy unit (ITU) and total hospital length of stay (LOS), oncological outcomes and functional outcomes were the other evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies with a total number of 3025 patients divided between rTME (n = 1881) and TaTME (n = 1144) groups were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups for total operative time (P = 0.39), conversion to open surgery (P = 0.29) and intra-operative blood loss (P = 0.62). Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complication rate (P = 0.47), anastomotic leak (P = 0.89), rates of re-operation (P = 0.62) and re-admission (P = 0.92), R0 resections (P = 0.52), ITU LOS (P = 0.63) and total hospital LOS (P = 0.30) also showed similar results between the two groups. However, the rTME group had higher rates of total harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.04) and complete total mesorectal excision (TME) resections (P = 0.05). Albeit with a limited dataset, the Wexner and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) scores showed better functional results in the rTME group compared with the TaTME group (P = 0.0009 and P = 0.00001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Compared with TaTME, rTME seems to provide better functional outcomes, higher lymph node yield and more complete TME resections with a similar post-operative complications profile.

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.

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.

Robotic, transanal, and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for locally advanced mid/low rectal cancer: European multicentre, propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgery for low/mid locally advanced rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare three minimally invasive surgical approaches for TME with primary anastomosis (laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, and transanal TME). METHODS: Records of patients undergoing laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, or transanal TME between 2013 and 2022 according to standardized techniques in expert centres contributing to the European MRI and Rectal Cancer Surgery III (EuMaRCS-III) database were analysed. Propensity score matching was applied to compare the three groups with respect to the complication rate (primary outcome), conversion rate, postoperative recovery, and survival. RESULTS: A total of 468 patients (mean(s.d.) age of 64.1(11) years) were included; 190 (40.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic TME, 141 (30.1%) patients underwent robotic TME, and 137 (29.3%) patients underwent transanal TME. Comparative analyses after propensity score matching demonstrated a higher rate of postoperative complications for laparoscopic TME compared with both robotic TME (OR 1.80, 95% c.i. 1.11-2.91) and transanal TME (OR 2.87, 95% c.i. 1.72-4.80). Robotic TME was associated with a lower rate of grade A anastomotic leakage (2%) compared with both laparoscopic TME (8.8%) and transanal TME (8.1%) (P = 0.031). Robotic TME (1.4%) and transanal TME (0.7%) were both associated with a lower conversion rate to open surgery compared with laparoscopic TME (8.8%) (P < 0.001). Time to flatus and duration of hospital stay were shorter for patients treated with transanal TME (P = 0.003 and 0.001 respectively). There were no differences in operating time, intraoperative complications, blood loss, mortality, readmission, R0 resection, or survival. CONCLUSION: In this multicentre, retrospective, propensity score-matched, cohort study of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, newer minimally invasive approaches (robotic TME and transanal TME) demonstrated improved outcomes compared with laparoscopic TME.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Feasibility of transanal minimally invasive surgery for total pelvic exenteration for advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to clarify the efficacy and safety of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for total pelvic exenteration (TPE) in advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies. METHODS: Using a prospectively collected database, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical, surgical, and pathological outcomes of TAMIS for TPE. Surgery was performed between September 2019 and April 2023. The median follow-up period was 22 months (2-45 months). RESULTS: Fifteen consecutive patients were included in this analysis M:F = 14:1 and median (range) age was 63 (36-74). Their diagnoses were as follows: primary rectal cancer (n = 5; 33%), recurrent rectal cancer (n = 4; 27%), primary anorectal cancer (n = 5; 33%), and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 1; 7%). Bladder-sparing TPE was selected for two patients (13%). In nine of 15 patients (60%) the anal sphincter could be successfully preserved, five patients (33%) required combined resection of the internal iliac vessels, and two (13%) required rectus muscle flap reconstruction. The median operative time was 723 min (561-1082), and the median intraoperative blood loss was 195 ml (30-1520). The Clavien-Dindo classifications of the postoperative complications were as follows: grade 0-2 (n = 11; 73%); 3a (n = 3; 20%); 3b (n = 1; 7%); and ≥ 4 (n = 0; 0%). No cases of conversion to laparotomy or mortality were observed. The pathological results demonstrated that R0 was achieved in 14 patients (93%). CONCLUSIONS: The short-term outcomes of this initial experience proved that this novel approach is feasible for TPE, with low blood loss, acceptable postoperative complications, and a satisfactory R0 resection rate.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review.

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.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Considering the Embryology Along the Fascia in Rectal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) remains a challenging technique for rectal dissection. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of TaTME, compared to those of the laparoscopic TME (LaTME) in rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using propensity score-matched analyses, we analyzed retrospective data from 134 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent TaTME or LaTME from January 2011 to June 2020 in our hospital. Clinical and oncological outcomes were evaluated. The primary endpoint was the 2-year local recurrence rate. RESULTS: Before data analysis, significant group-dependent differences were observed only in the tumor height (p<0.01). After analysis, preoperative patient demographics were similar between the TaTME and LaTME groups. The operative time was significantly shorter in the TaTME group (p=0.02), and the rates of hand-sewn anastomosis and protective loop ileostomy were significantly higher (p<0.01). The TaTME group showed a null conversion to open surgery compared to the LaTME group (5.9%). The postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak, were comparable between the two groups. However, the rate of Clavien-Dindo grade III tended to be lower in the TaTME group (p=0.07). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of pathological findings, and the 2-year local recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (both 5.9%). CONCLUSION: TaTME based on embryology along the fascia is feasible and seems a safe alternative to LaTME in selected patients with rectal cancer when considering the conversion rate and the operative time.

Functional outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME): a random forest analysis to predict patients' outcomes.

PURPOSE: Anorectal, sexual, and urinary dysfunction are common issues after rectal cancer surgery, although seldom explored. The primary aim of this study was to investigate postoperative anorectal functional results. METHODS: Patients with mid/low-rectal cancer treated with transanal TME (TaTME) with primary anastomosis with/without diverting stoma between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed and selected if they had a minimum follow-up of 6 months (from the primary procedure or stoma reversal). Patients were interviewed using validated questionnaires and the primary outcome was bowel function based on Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) scores. Statistical analyses were performed to identify clinical/operative variables correlated with worse outcomes. A random forest (RF) algorithm was computed to classify patients at a greater risk of minor/major LARS. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were selected out of 154 TaTME performed. Overall, 88.7% of the patients had a protective stoma and 25.8% reported major LARS at mean follow-up of 19.0 months. Statistical analyses documented that age, operative time, and interval to stoma reversal correlated with LARS outcomes. The RF analysis disclosed worse LARS symptoms in patients with longer operative time (> 295 min) and stoma reversal interval (> 5.6 months). If the interval ranged between 3 and 5.6 months, older patients (> 65 years) reported worse outcomes. Finally, no statistical difference was documented when comparing the rate of minor/major LARS in the first 27 cases versus others. CONCLUSION: One-quarter of the patients developed major LARS after TaTME. An algorithm based on clinical/operative variables, such as age, operative time, and time to stoma reversal, was developed to identify categories at risk for LARS symptoms.

Learning Curve for Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Although transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a promising treatment for low rectal cancer, it is considered technically demanding, and the number of cases required to become proficient in TaTME remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the TaTME learning curve based on the total mesorectal excision completion time. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective analysis comprised 128 individuals who received TaTME between September 2016 and December 2021. The cumulative sum method was used to generate the learning curve. The duration of the procedure from the beginning to the end of the circumferential rendezvous was used to define the total mesorectal excision completion time. RESULTS: The learning curve consists of 3 phases: phase I (learning phase: cases 1 to 38), phase II (consolidation phase: cases 39 to 70), and phase III (maturing phase: cases 71 to 128). As the phases varied, both the overall operative time and total mesorectal excision completion time decreased considerably. Through the 3 phases of TaTME, intraoperative adverse events decreased, and in phase III, none occurred. Only 1 instance of local recurrence occurred during phase III, and none occurred during phase I or II. CONCLUSIONS: After 70 operations, the surgeon could join the mastery phase of TaTME based on the total mesorectal excision completion time. After the mastering phase began, there were no intraoperative negative occurrences. From the beginning, the oncological safety could be guaranteed.

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.

Current status of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer and the expanding indications of the transanal approach for extended pelvic surgeries.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has been rapidly accepted as a promising surgical approach to the distal rectum. The benefits include ease of access to the bottom of the deep pelvis linearly over a short distance in order to easily visualize the important anatomy. Furthermore, the distal resection margins can be secured under direct vision. Additionally, a two-team approach combining taTME with a transabdominal approach could decrease the operative time and conversion rate. Although taTME was expected to become more rapidly popularized worldwide, enthusiasm for it has stalled due to unfamiliar intraoperative complications, a lack of oncologic evidence from randomized trials, and the widespread use of robotic surgery. While international registries have reported favorable short- and medium-term outcomes from taTME, a Norwegian national study reported a high local recurrence rate of 9.5%. The characteristics of the recurrences included rapid, multifocal growth in the pelvis, which was quite different from recurrences following traditional transabdominal TME; thus, the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Group reached a consensus for a temporary moratorium on the performance of taTME. To ensure acceptable baseline quality and patient safety, taTME should be performed by well-trained colorectal surgeons. Although the appropriate indications for taTME remain controversial, the transanal approach is extremely important as a means of goal setting in difficult TME cases and as an aid to the transabdominal approach in various types of extended pelvic surgeries. The benefits in transanal lateral lymph node dissection and pelvic exenteration are presented herein.

Quality of life and functional outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer-results from the implementation period in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: The standard operation for mid- and low rectal cancer total mesorectal excision (TME) is routinely performed as minimally invasive surgery. TME is associated with temporary or permanent functional impairment of pelvic organs, causing reduced quality of life (QoL). Concerns have been raised that the newest minimally invasive approach, transanal TME (TaTME), may further reduce urogenital and anorectal functions. OBJECTIVE: To determine if functional outcomes affecting QoL are altered after TaTME. Primary end-point is the impact of TaTME on QoL and functional outcomes. Secondary end-point is assessing differences in QoL and functional outcomes after TME surgery from below (TaTME) or above (transabdominal TME). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study consisting of prospectively registered self-reported questionnaire data collected at baseline and follow-ups after TaTME. All patients who underwent TaTME during the Danish national implementation phase were included. Central surveillance of the implementation included questionnaires concerning QoL and functional outcomes. Analyses of functional results from the Danish cohort of the ROLARR trial (Jayne et al. in JAMA 318:1569-1580, (2017) are reported separately for perspective, representing the transabdominal approach to TME, i.e., laparoscopic- or robotic-assisted TME (LaTME/RoTME). Applied questionnaires include EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, LARS, ICIQ-MLUTS, ICIQ-FLUTS, IPSS, IIEF, SVQ, and FSFI. RESULTS: A total of 115 TaTME procedures were registered August 2016 to April 2019. LaTME/RoTME patients (n = 92) were operated on January 2011 to September 2014. A temporary postoperative decrease of QoL (global health status and functional scales) was observed, yet long-term results were unaffected by surgery in both groups. In TaTME patients, the anorectal dysfunction increased significantly (p < 0.001) from preoperative baseline to 13.5 months follow-up, where 67.5% (n = 52) reported major LARS symptoms. Urinary function was not significantly impaired after TME regardless of technique. The paucity of responses concerning sexual function precludes conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Although an initial reduction in QoL after TME occurs, it normalizes within the first year postoperatively. In concurrence with international results, we found that significant anorectal dysfunction is common after TaTME. No data on anorectal function was available for LaTME/RoTME patients for comparison. We found no indications that transanal TME is inferior to transabdominal TME surgery concerning urogenital functions or health-related QoL.

Initial experience with intraoperative testing and repair of colorectal anastomosis using a TAMIS approach after a positive leak test.

Anastomotic leak is one of the most feared complications of colorectal anastomosis. Different techniques have been described for intraoperative testing of anastomotic integrity. These include air insufflation, methylene blue and endoscopic visualisation. If an anastomotic leak is identified intraoperatively, there are various management options. Redo anastomosis is a possibility, but may be difficult in some cases. Defunctioning is another option, but there is an associated morbidity and signficant detrimental effect on quality of life. Direct transanal repair is only possible when a low anastomosis has been performed. When the anastomotic leak occurs high in the rectum or a partial mesorectal excision is performed a transanal approach is technically very challenging. We present our experience with transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) approach for anastomotic assessment and repair in four patients. In all cases, a colorectal anastomosis was performed and the air insufflation test was positive. We assessed the anastomosis with TAMIS. In three cases, a defect was found and subsequently sutured. In one case, a scar in the rectal mucosa was found and reinforced with a suture. A protective ileostomy was performed in two cases, while in the other two cases, no stoma was added. All four patients were discharged with no further complications. Both protective ileostomies were taken down after radiological and endoscopic confirmation of anastomotic integrity and all 4 anastomoses remain intact after follow-up. TAMIS intraoperative assessment and repair of anastomotic leak is a safe and feasible technique whcih may avoid the need for a defunctioning stoma.