Quality of life and functional outcomes after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer. an updated meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Concerns exist regarding the potential for transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) to yield poorer functional outcomes compared to laparoscopic TME (LaTME). The aim of this study is to assess the functional outcomes following taTME and LaTME, focusing on bowel, anorectal, and urogenital disorders and their impact on the patient's QoL. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. The variables considered are: Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Jorge-Wexner scales; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C29 and QLQ-C30 scales. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 1020 patients (497-taTME group/ 523-LaTME group) were included. There was no significant difference between the treatments in terms of anorectal function: LARS (MD: 2.81, 95% CI: - 2.45-8.08, p = 0.3; I2 = 97%); Jorge-Wexner scale (MD: -1.3, 95% CI: -3.22-0.62, p = 0.19). EORTC QLQ C30/29 scores were similar between the groups. No significant differences were reported in terms of urogenital function: IPSS (MD: 0.0, 95% CI: - 1.49-1.49, p = 0.99; I2 = 72%). CONCLUSIONS: This review supports previous findings indicating that functional outcomes and QoL are similar for rectal cancer patients who underwent taTME or LaTME. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and understand the long-term impact of the functional sequelae of these surgical approaches.

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.

Developing an Animal Model for Swenson Transanal Endorectal Pull-Through: A New Possibility for Training and Research Purposes.

As far as we know, no report uses the Swenson transanal endorectal pull-through technique in an animal model. Our objective is to describe the use of this technique as an experimental model for training and research purposes. Ten Norfolk hybrid rabbits were randomly selected from our experimental laboratory, with a mean weight of 3539.3 (± 678.4) g. Neither colon preparation nor fast were used before the procedures. The surgical technique was based on the description performed by Levitt et al. (2013, J Pediatr Surg. 2013;48(11):2289-2295). Information related to the surgical procedures and the clinical evolution in the postoperative period were recorded and analyzed. There were no deaths or severe complications. The anesthetic and the surgical times were significantly higher for the first three animals of the experiment. Our animal model proved adequate to perform the transanal endorectal Swenson pull-through technique, allowing the training of surgical skills through a model similar to the human, with few anesthetic complications and good postoperative evolution, including postoperative follow-up. We believe that it will serve as a learning tool in many institutions that are continuously searching for improved new techniques and will support new researches in this area.

Trans­anal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus rigid platforms for local excision of early rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Available platforms for local excision (LE) of early rectal cancer are rigid or flexible [trans­anal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS)]. We systematically searched the literature to compare outcomes between platforms. METHODS: PRISMA-compliant search of PubMed and Scopus databases until September 2022 was undertaken in this random-effect meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic. Studies comparing TAMIS versus rigid platforms for LE for early rectal cancer were included. Main outcome measures were intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes and specimen quality. RESULTS: 7 studies were published between 2015 and 2022, including 931 patients (423 females); 402 underwent TAMIS and 529 underwent LE with rigid platforms. Techniques were similar for operative time (WMD 11.1, 95%CI - 2.6 to 25, p = 0.11), percentage of defect closure (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.06-8.22, p = 0.78), and peritoneal violation (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.12-1.43, p = 0.16). Rigid platforms had higher rates of short-term complications (19.1% vs 14.2, OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.07-2.4, p = 0.02), although no significant differences were seen for major complications (OR 1.41, 95%CI 0.61-3.23, p = 0.41). Patients in the rigid platforms group were 3-times more likely to be re-admitted within 30 days compared to the TAMIS group (OR 3.1, 95%CI 1.07-9.4, p = 0.03). Rates of positive resection margins (rigid platforms: 7.6% vs TAMIS: 9.34%, OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.42-1.55, p = 0.53) and specimen fragmentation (rigid platforms: 3.3% vs TAMIS: 4.4%, OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.33-1.64, p = 0.46) were similar between the groups. Salvage surgery was required in 5.5% of rigid platform patients and 6.2% of TAMIS patients (OR 0.8, 95%CI 0.4-1.8, p = 0.7). CONCLUSION: TAMIS or rigid platforms for LE seem to have similar operative outcomes and specimen quality. The TAMIS group demonstrated lower readmission and overall complication rates but did not significantly differ for major complications. The choice of platform should be based on availability, cost, and surgeon's preference.

Evaluation of Trans-Anal Endorectal Pull-Through Outcomes in Hirschsprung's Disease in Different Age Groups: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The timing of trans-anal endorectal pull-through (TAEPT) for Hirschsprung's disease (HD) is controversial. Early endorectal pull-through avoids the occurrence of preoperative enterocolitis. However, delayed pull-through (≥31 days) enables postnatal maturation of the anal canal and sphincter complex. The aim of this study was to identify the best age to perform trans-anal pull-through according to the literature. METHODS: This is a comprehensive systematic review. All articles published from 2010 to 2022 were searched in the Web of Science, Ovid Medline, PubMed, CINAHIL, and Embase databases, using the keywords HD, delayed or early treatment, trans-anal pull-through surgery, age, sex or gender, complications and outcomes. Articles that met the inclusion criteria with good to fair quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment and low bias score in the Cochran collaboration tool were reviewed. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were eligible to be reviewed. The overall results of this study showed that due to more common short-term complications at neonatal period and lower contrast enema diagnostic accuracy in determining the transition zone, it seems to be reasonable decision to postpone surgery until the child is several months old. There was also no difference in terms of complications and outcomes of trans-anal pull-through surgery between females and males. CONCLUSION: It is not recommended to delay surgery too much for ages over 1 year. Ages between 3 and 12 months can be a good time for interventional treatment for HD.

Artificial intelligence-assisted decision making: Prediction of optimal level of distal mesorectal margin during transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) using deep neural network modeling.

BACKGROUND: With steep posterior anorectal angulation, transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) may have a risk of dissection in the wrong plane or starting higher up, resulting in leaving distal mesorectum behind. Although the distal mesorectal margin can be assessed by preoperative MRI, it needs skilled radiologist and high-definition image for accurate evaluation. This study developed a deep neural network (DNN) to predict the optimal level of distal mesorectal margin. METHODS: A total of 182 pelvic MRI images extracted from the cancer image archive (TCIA) database were included. A DNN was developed using gender, the degree of anterior and posterior anorectal angles as input variables while the difference between anterior and posterior mesorectal distances from anal verge was selected as a target. The predictability power was assessed by regression values (R) which is the correlation between the predicted outputs and actual targets. RESULTS: The anterior angle was an obtuse angle while the posterior angle varied from acute to obtuse with mean angle difference 35.5°±14.6. The mean difference between the anterior and posterior mesorectal end distances was 18.6±6.6mm. The developed DNN had a very close correlation with the target during training, validation, and testing (R=0.99, 0.81, and 0.89, P<0.001). The predicted level of distal mesorectal margin was closely correlated with the actual optimal level (R=0.91, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence can assist in either making or confirming the preoperative decisions. Furthermore, the developed model can alert the surgeons for this potential risk and the necessity of re-positioning the proctectomy incision.

Decalogue for mastering robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (rTAMIS).

This manuscript offers a detailed description of our successful tips for mastering transanal robotic surgery. It covers various aspects, including patient positioning, management of abdominal pressures to maintain a stable pneumorectum, platform positioning, camera alignment, trocar positioning to minimize collisions, instruments used, and approaches to tumor resection.

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.

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.

[Perceptions of transanal total mesorectal excision surgical quality and patient screening].

As a rapid developing rectal cancer procedure that has been in existence for more than a decade, transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has had a rough experience along the way, suggesting the importance of improving its surgical quality. In the current view of quality control of taTME, its main advantages are that it could increase the distance of distal margins, reduce the positive rate of circumferential margins, and improve the quality of total mesorectal excision. As few high-quality clinical studies have been conducted, the limitations brought about by confounding bias and publication bias that could not be excluded in current published studies call for a cautious interpretation of the current conclusions. At this stage taTME is only recommended in highly selective patients and centers. Under these circumstances, we aim to discuss the quality assessment of the taTME procedure and the selection of patients and centers. Based on current evidence and practical experience, we typically select patients with difficult pelvis, low rectal cancer, and/or those requiring direct visual recognition of the distal margin after neoadjuvant chemoradiation to perform taTME in our center.

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.

Functional outcomes and quality of life following open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients' functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients' functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] -0 .15 [- 0.24 to - 0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.

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.

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.

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.

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres.

BACKGROUND: The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres. METHODS: All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan. RESULTS: Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024. CONCLUSION: Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

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.