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.

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.

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 minimally invasive surgery for benign and malignant rectal lesions: midterm outcomes from a tertiary center.

BACKGROUND: Although transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for rectal neoplasia has gained wide acceptance, the mid-term and long-term outcomes are not widely reported in the literature. OBJECTIVE: Describe the mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent TAMIS for benign and malignant rectal lesions in a single center. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent TAMIS between January 2015 and December 2022 were prospectively collected. The indication for TAMIS was based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. The follow up for the cancer patients included clinical examination, tumor markers every 6 months and MRI rectum at the end of one year. In addition, colonoscopy and CT scan at years one and three and a final CT scan and colonoscopy at year five. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mid-term oncological and clinical outcome. RESULTS: Thirty elective TAMIS procedures included adenocarcinoma for 33.3% (n=10) of the patients, 20% (n=6) neuroendocrine tumor and the 40% (n=12) were adenomatous lesions. Negative resection margins were achieved in all malignant lesions. Perioperative complications occurred in 2 patients (6.6%), one patient had breaching into the peritoneal cavity, and postoperative hypotension occurred in another patient. The median follow-up time was 23 months (range: 5-72 months). Two patients with adenoma and positive margins developed recurrent adenoma (6.6%) and one patient with initial polypectomy biopsy of adenocarcinoma, had TAMIS with histopathology of adenoma and distant metastasis had developed. CONCLUSIONS: TAMIS for local excision of rectal neoplasia is a valid option with favorable mid-term outcomes provided there is adherence to careful selection criteria. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective nature and small number of the patients.

Eight years experience of transanal endoscopic microsurgery

Introduction: Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) is a minimally invasive method for management of different proctologic conditions. Despite widespread use of this method, it is not used widely in Iran. This report is about to describe the application of TEM in managing different proctologic conditions in a tertiary colorectal referral center in Iran regarding methods and complications. Methods: All of the patients' documents such as procedure, method, early postop complications and further operations were actively reviewed and the data were entered in to the database. Results: Since 2012 till the end of 2020 chart review was done and 150 cases of TEM operation were found. The most frequent procedure that was done was resection procedure. Using different energy devices during surgery or suturing versus not suturing the defect were not associated with complication. There was a case of in hospital mortality and one case delayed perianal fistula following TEM. Measurement of lesion distance from anal verge was not significantly different using TEM or colonoscopy. Villous adenomas detected in colonoscopy were mostly associated with malignancy. In evaluated resected lesions most of cases had free base and distance from anal verge or using different energy devices were not associated with obtaining free base. Conclusion: TEM is a safe minimal invasive procedure with acceptable complications that could be helped in managing different proctologic conditions and the results of reviewing our patients revealed the same results that is reported from other colorectal centers. (AU)

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

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

Impact of trans-anal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision on the surgical and pathologic outcomes of patients with rectal cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite its profound impact on the oncologic outcomes of rectal cancer, the most optimal surgical approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) has not been identified yet. All previous meta-analyses on this subject have been based on observational studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic TME (LaTME) compared to trans-anal TME (TaTME), utilizing only randomized controlled trials. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltials.gov) from 2010 onwards, for all published clinical trials comparing TaTME to LaTME. Results are presented as risk ratios, with 95% CI, and pooled using the random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 1691 patients, from 6 eligible randomized controlled trials, were included for analysis. Analyzed data showed no significant difference in morbidity (RR: 0.85, p = 0.15), mortality (RR: 0.50, p = 0.44), conversion to open (RR: 0.40, p = 0.07), or anastomotic leakage (RR: 0.73, p = 0.10) between TaTME and LaTME. There was also no difference in the rate of positive distal resection margin (DRM) (RR: 0.55, p = 0.10) or positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR: 0.67, p = 0.30). Patients undergoing TaTME were more likely to have a complete TME (RR: 1.06, p = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays (RR: - 0.97, p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing TaTME for rectal cancer were more likely to have a complete TME when compared to LaTME, though this did not translate into improved distal or circumferential resection margin. Additionally, TaTME and LaTME had similar surgical outcomes except for shorter length of stay with TaTME.

The role of transanal compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (taTME vs. lapTME) for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer in obese patients: outcomes of a multicenter propensity-matched analysis.

To compare the rate of sphincter-saving interventions between transanal and laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in this particular group of patients. A multicentre observational study was conducted using a prospective database, including patients diagnosed with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, who underwent minimally invasive elective surgery over a 5-year period. Exclusion criteria were (1) sphincter and/or puborectalis invasion; (2) multi-visceral resections; (3) palliative surgeries. The study population was divided into two groups according to the intervention: transanal or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. The primary outcome was the rate of sphincter-saving surgery. Secondary outcomes included conversion, postoperative complications, quality of the specimen, and survival. A total of 93 patients were included; 40 (43%) transanal total mesorectal excision were compared to 53 (57%) laparoscopic. In addition, 35 cases of transanal approach were case-matched with an equal number of laparoscopic approaches, based on gender, tumor's height, and neoadjuvant therapy. In both groups, 43% of the patients had low rectal cancer; however, the rate of sphincter-saving surgery was significantly higher in the transanal group (97% vs. 71%, p = 0.003). There were no conversions to open surgery in the transanal group, compared to 2 cases in the laparoscopic group (6%) (p = 0.246). The percentage of major complications was similar, including the rate of anastomotic leakage (10% transanal vs. 19% laparoscopic, p = 0.835). In our experience, higher percentages of sphincter-saving procedures and lower conversion rates are potential benefits of using the transanal approach in a complex surgical setting population of obese patients with mid-low rectal tumors when compared to laparoscopic.

Comparing perioperative and oncological outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective studies.

INTRODUCTION: Meta-analysis of the results of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and laparoscopic TME (laTME) regarding perioperative and oncological outcomes have been conducted. Due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies in the included literature, the conclusions are unreliable. This study included RCTs and prospective studies for analysis to obtain more reliable conclusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted up to June 2023. To assess the quality, the Cochrane quality assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were employed. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were then analyzed. The I2 statistic was used to evaluate statistical heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies, comprising 5056 patients, were included in the analysis, of which 6 were RCTs and 16 were prospective studies. The conversion rate in the taTME group was significantly lower than that in the laTME group (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.22, P < 0.01), and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was longer (MD 0.99 mm, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32 mm, P < 0.01), with a lower rate of positive CRM involvement (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97, P = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, anastomotic leakage, uroschesis, obstruction, secondary operation, hospital stay, urethral injury, readmission, mortality rate within 30 days, mesorectal resection quality, number of harvested lymph nodes, distal resection margin (DRM), positive DRM, local recurrence, and distance recurrence (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: According to the findings of this meta-analysis, which is based on RCTs and prospective studies, taTME appears to have an advantage over laTME in terms of conversion rate and CRM involvement.

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

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

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

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

[Consensus and operating guidelines of Chinese experts on transanal endoscopic surgery (2023 edition)].

Although transanal endoscopic surgery has been developed for more than 40 years, it remains relatively unknown to most domestic colleagues. In 2019, the Chinese Society of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (CSTa) and the Chinese Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (CSCRS) organized domestic experts to write and publish the "Chinese Expert Consensus on Transanal Endoscopic Surgery (2019 Edition)", which elaborated on the definition, surgical methods, indications, contraindications, basic principles, key issues and complications of transanal endoscopic surgery, and provided a certain theoretical foundation for the development of transanal endoscopic surgery in China. In the past four years, the scope of application of transanal endoscopic techniques has been expanded, and many prospective and retrospective clinical research have provided more evidence-based medical evidence. Therefore, the Chinese Society of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (CSTa) once again organized domestic experts to write the "Expert Consensus and Operation Guidelines for Transanal Endoscopic Surgery in China (2023 Edition)", updating the expert consensus opinions on the definition, indications, complications and learning curve of transanal endoscopic surgery and adding operation guidelines. The aim is to promote the standardized practices in transanal endoscopic surgery and facilitate a shorter learning curve for surgeons.

[Application of triangle stability mechanical model in the layer separation of transanal total mesorectal excision].

Transanal total mesorectal resection (taTME) has come a long way since it was first used in the clinic in 2010.The learning curve of this procedure is long due to different surgical approaches, different perspectives and different anatomical positions. Many surgeons experience complications during this procedure. Although the advantages and problems of this procedure have been reported in much literature, the anatomy and operation methods of taTME introduced in literatures and training centers are too complicated, which makes many surgeons encounter difficulties in carrying out taTME surgery. According to the author's experience in learning and carrying out this operation, spatial expansion process of ultralow rectal cancer was divided into three stages. At each stage, according to different pulling forces, three different schemes of triangular stability mechanics model were adopted for separation. From point to line, from line to plane, the model can protect the safety of peripheral blood vessels and nerves while ensuring total mesorectal excision . This model simplifies the complex surgical process and is convenient for beginners to master taTME surgical separation skills.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a technique where rectal dissection is begun transanally in a "bottom-up" fashion. This technique facilitates dissection of the most distal part of the rectum and allows the establishment of the distal margin for rectal cancer. TaTME has proven its utility in facilitating low rectal dissection with significantly lower conversion rates and acceptable perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes. However, taTME remains a challenging technique to learn and adopt. This article describes the technique, indications, and outcomes of taTME in rectal cancer during the last decade.

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.

Long-term outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in Denmark: A prospective multicenter study from the late implementation phase.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term surgical and oncological outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer during an implementation phase on a national level. METHOD: This is a retrospective review of prospectively recorded data. Registration was initiated by the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group in order to assess the quality of care during the implementation of TaTME in Denmark. Data from four centers were pooled for simultaneous analysis. Short-term data was available from a prior study, and long-term data regarding recurrences, chemotherapy, and mortality was collected. RESULTS: From August 2016 to April 2019, 115 TaTME procedures were registered. Patients were predominantly male (n = 85, 74%) with mid-rectal (n = 88, 77%) tumors. The overall local recurrence rate was 7.8% (n = 9) of which six patients also had systemic recurrence. Mean long-term follow-up was 59.4 months, and median time to local recurrence was 24.9 months. Local recurrences occurred predominantly among initial implementation cases. The overall mortality rate was 13% (n = 15). Of the 17 patients with recurrence, 35% (n = 6) died and developed either solely distant recurrence (n = 2, 12%) or in combination with local recurrence (n = 4, 24%). CONCLUSION: We found acceptable long-term oncological results after TaTME during the implementation phase in Denmark. There was an accumulation of local recurrences in the early phase of the study which emphasizes the importance of thorough training and proctoring when starting the approach.

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

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