Impact of Two‐Team Surgery on Short‐ and Long‐Term Outcomes of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

PurposeTo evaluate the feasibility of transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer.MethodsThis study enrolled 12 patients with clinically node negative rectal cancer located 4–12 cm from the anal verge who underwent transanal endoscopic TME with the assistance of single port laparoscopic surgery between September 2013 and August 2014. The primary endpoint was TME quality; secondary endpoints included number of harvested lymph nodes and postoperative complications within 30 days (NCT01938027).ResultsThe 12 patients included 7 males and 5 females, of median age 59 years and median body mass index 24.2 kg/m2. Tumors were located on average 6.7 cm from the anal verge. Four patients (33.3%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Median operating time was 195 minutes and median blood loss was 50 mL. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions to open surgery. TME was complete or nearly complete in 11 patients (91.7%). Median distal resection and circumferential resection margins were 18.5 mm and 10 mm, respectively. Median number of harvested lymph nodes was 15. Median length of hospital stay was 9 days. There were no postoperative deaths. Six patients experienced minor postoperative complications, including urinary dysfunction in 2, transient ileus in 3, and wound abscess in 1.ConclusionThis pilot study showed that high-quality TME was possible in most patients without serious complications. Transanal TME for patients with rectal cancer may be feasible and safe, but further investigations are necessary to evaluate its long-term functional and oncologic outcomes and to clarify its indications.

Total mesorectal excision has become the standard treatment for rectal cancer, and several investigators have shown that a transanal approach is a feasible option. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer. This study was a prospective, single-arm phase II trial. It was registered on clinicaltrials.gov under identifier NCT02406118. Inpatients at a hospital specializing in oncology were selected. This prospective study enrolled 49 patients with rectal cancer located 3 to 12 cm from the anal verge who were scheduled to undergo radical surgery. Laparoscopy-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision was performed. The primary end point was total mesorectal excision quality and circumferential resection margin. Secondary end points included the number of harvested lymph nodes, operation time, and 30-day postoperative complications. From March 2015 to April 2016, 32 men and 17 women with rectal cancer were enrolled. The mean age was 61.2 years, and mean BMI was 23.3 kg/m. The mean operating time was 158 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 89.3 mL. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions to open surgery. Successful treatment based on total mesorectal excision quality and circumferential resection margin was achieved in 45 patients (91.8%). Fifteen patients (30.6%) had 30-day postoperative complications, including 7 (14.3%) with anastomotic dehiscence, 5 (10.2%) with urinary retention, 2 (4.1%) with abdominal wound complications, and 1 (2.0%) with ileus. There was no postoperative mortality. This was a noncomparative single-arm trial conducted at a single institution. Transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision showed acceptable results based on perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes. Further investigations are necessary to show the benefits and long-term outcomes of this procedure. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A563.

Total mesorectal excision (TME) has greatly reduced the local recurrence rate of rectal cancer after colorectal surgery. Transanal TME (TaTME) is potentially a suitable option for patients with mid and low rectal cancer. Robotic systems overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision (RTaTME) in patients with rectal cancer. The clinical data of patients who underwent RTaTME for rectal cancer between May 2017 and January 2020 were reviewed. The perioperative data and short-term outcomes of all the patients were retrospectively analysed. Last follow-up was in May 2020. A total of 13 patients had RTaTME during the 36-month study period. The median docking time was 18 (IQR 16-20) minutes, median transanal phase time was 95 (IQR 74-100) minutes, median total operation time was 240 (IQR 195-270) minutes, median estimated blood loss was 60 (IQR 50-100) ml, the median number of lymph nodes retrieved was 15 (IQR 13-16) and median length of postoperative hospital stay was 7 (IQR 6-10) days. There was no mortality. Three (23%) patients suffered a postoperative complication including one anastomotic leak and one prolonged ileus, none of them required any intervention. Patientswere followed up fora median of 15 (IQR 11-18) months, and no local tumour recurrences, metastasis or deaths were reported. Our preliminary results suggest that RTaTME for rectal cancer is feasible. This innovative approach may offer patients potential benefits-further studies are needed.

BackgroundColorectal cancer is a common malignancy. Despite advances in minimally invasive surgery, achieving optimal outcomes for locally advanced rectal cancer remains challenging. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is an alternative to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME), but inconsistent data warrant a comprehensive meta-analysis of the two procedures.MethodsA systematic search was conducted across the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2025 using keywords related to rectal cancer and TaTME. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO. Inclusion criteria followed the PICOS framework, selecting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing TaTME with LapTME or robotic total mesorectal excision (TME). Studies reporting on non-malignant cases, single-arm studies, and studies with insufficient data for analysis were excluded. Primary outcomes of interest were surgical metrics (operative time, conversion rates), pathological outcomes (circumferential resection margin (CRM), TME completion), oncological outcomes (local recurrence, overall survival), and functional outcomes (major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS)).ResultsIn all, 65 studies involving 13 972 participants met the inclusion criteria. TaTME had lower conversion rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.35; 95% c.i. 0.24 to 0.51; P < 0.01), improved TME completeness (OR 1.26; 95% c.i. 1.02 to 1.55; P = 0.03), and lower CRM positivity (OR 0.7; 95% c.i. 0.58 to 0.85; P < 0.01) compared with LapTME. Local recurrence was reduced (OR 0.69; 95% c.i. 0.55 to 0.87; P < 0.01) and overall survival improved (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% c.i. 0.70 to 0.91; P < 0.01) following TaTME, but TaTME was associated with a higher risk of major LARS (OR 1.58; 95% c.i. 1.11 to 2.24; P = 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed consistent results across RCTs and cohort studies.ConclusionTaTME offers several advantages over LapTME, including lower conversion rates and improved CRM and oncological outcomes. The increased risk of major LARS with TaTME underscores the importance of balancing functional outcomes with other benefits. Future research should focus on optimizing functional recovery and addressing high heterogeneity across studies.

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). 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. 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. 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.

PurposeUnder the South Korea's unique health insurance structure, any new surgical technology must be evaluated first by the government in order to consider whether that particular technology can be applied to patients for further clinical trials as categorized as ‘New Health Technology,’ then potentially covered by the insurance sometime later. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer, activated by the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) TaTME committee.MethodsWe systematically searched Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane, and Korean databases (from their inception until August 31, 2019) for studies published that compare TaTME with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME). End-points included perioperative and pathological outcomes.ResultsSixteen cohort studies (7 for case-matched studies) were identified, comprising 1,923 patients (938 TaTMEs and 985 LaTMEs). Regarding perioperative outcomes, the conversion rate was significantly lower in TaTME (risk ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.11–0.34; P < 0.001); whereas other perioperative outcomes were similar to LaTME. There were no statistically significant differences in pathological results between the 2 procedures.ConclusionOur meta-analysis showed comparable results in preoperative and pathologic outcomes between TaTME and LaTME, and indicated the benefit of TaTME with low conversion. Extensive evaluations of well-designed, multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to come to unequivocal conclusions, but the results showed that TaTME is a potentially beneficial technique in some specific cases. This meta-analysis suggests that TaTME can be performed for rectal cancer patients as a ‘New Health Technology’ endorsed by NECA in South Korea.

Objective To analyze the efficacy and prognosis of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) in the treatment of middle and lower rectal cancer. Methods From February 2015 to February 2016, sixty-four patients with moderate to low rectal cancer undergoing elective TME were selected and randomly divided into two groups: TaTME group and LaTME group, with 32 cases in each group. The following indexes such as the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, specimen integrity rate, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate, distal resection margin (DRM) negative rate, lymph node dissection, retention rate, conversion rate, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, local recurrence rate, distant metastasis rate, and 2-year overall survival rate (OS) were compared between the two groups. Results The intraoperative bleeding, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, and rate of conversion, specimen integrity, positive CRM, anal preservation, urinary retention in TaTME group were significantly better than those in LaTME group (all P<0.05). All patients were followed up for 2-24 months. The median survival time was 23.9 months in TaTME group and 19.7 months in LaTME group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the local recurrence rate and metastasis rate (6.2% vs 3.1%, χ2=0.350, P=0.554; 3.1% vs 3.1%, χ2=0.516, P=0.472). The local recurrence rate and metastasis rate were 6.2% (2/32) and 3.1%(1/32), respectively. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the 1 year OS (100.00% vs 93.75%, χ2=0.516, P=0.472). The 2-year OS of TaTME group was significantly higher than that of LaTME group (96.87% vs 81.25%, χ2=4.402, P=0.036). Conclusion Compared with LaTME, TaTME has the advantages of less postoperative complications, shorter postoperative hospital stay and better prognosis, and is safe and feasible in the treatment of middle and lower rectal cancer. Key words: Rectal neoplasms; Total mesorectal excision; Transanal; Laparoscopes

In this article, we provide an important commentary on the original study Lu et al , which offers insight into the surgical efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME) in the management of low-lying locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). We focus specifically on the rate of postoperative complications between the two using existing data from the literature. We additionally introduce robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) and look at its postoperative complications relative to the TaTME and LapTME. LARC has been conventionally approached by open surgery. However, minimally invasive techniques have emerged over the past two decades as alternatives to open total mesorectal excision, namely robotic, laparoscopic, and transanal. Each approach has its supporters, but conflicting data on resection outcomes and complications has fueled ongoing debate over the optimal minimally invasive technique for low/mid-LARC. This article aims to extend on the data regarding the use of TaTME and RTME in the treatment of low/mid-LARC and further elaborate on their comparative efficacy relative to LapTME.

The aim of this study was to compare long-term oncological, functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL) after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for rectal cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were conducted on PubMed and Cochrane database. Non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) which compared TaTME with LaTME were included. Ten non-randomized studies were identified, including a total of 638 patients (323 TaTME and 315 LaTME). Age, sex, body mass index, neoadjuvant treatment and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) staging of patients in the two groups were comparable in all included studies. The follow-up period was significantly shorter in the TaTME group than in the LaTME group. No significant differences in local (p = 0.71) and distant (p = 0.23) recurrence rate, 2-year disease-free (p = 0.86) and overall (p = 0.25) survival was found. Also, no significant differences in function outcomes and QoL, including the Wexner score (p = 0.48) or the International Prostate Syndrome Score (IPSS) (p = 0.64) were found. However, the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score was significantly higher in the TaTME group (p = 0.04). TaTME and LaTME have similar long-term oncological and functional outcomes as well as QoL. The only exception is higher LARS scores after TaTME. The current data are based mainly on observational studies and further randomized controlled trials are required.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has the potential advantages for patients with low rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to identify the pathologic outcomes between the TaTME and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) in rectal cancer. The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE with English language restriction. The primary endpoint was circumferential margin (CRM), and the secondary endpoints were distal resection margin (DRM), mesorectal excision quality, and harvested lymph nodes. Our research identified 1090 articles, and 26 studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The positive CRM was lower in the TaTME than the LaTME (OR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.98; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the positive CRM between the TaTME and LaTME published after 2016 (OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.12; P = 0.19), prospective study (OR = 2.70; 95% CI = 0.51, 14.24; P = 0.24), respective study (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.55, 1.04; P = 0.09), BMI > 26 (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.63, 1.58; P = 0.98), or sample size > 100 (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.23; P = 0.38). In addition, there was no significant difference observed between the TaTME and LaTME in terms of DRM, mesorectum incompleteness, and harvested lymph nodes. The TaTME is associated with lower positive CRM compared to the LaTME and similar pathologic outcomes including DRM, harvested lymph node, and mesorectal excision quality.

Despite proven clinical benefits in the short term, technical difficulties limit utilization of laparoscopy in rectal cancer surgery (RCS). Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) overcomes many technical limitations of laparoscopic RCS. However, the costs of this procedure have not been addressed yet. Our goal was to perform a comparative cost analysis of taTME and laparoscopic TME (lapTME). Consecutive patients undergoing curative TME between 1 February 2014 and 31 October 2018 were selected from a prospectively maintained database and stratified, according to the type of procedure, into taTME and lapTME groups. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative parameters, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. The main outcome measure was intraoperative costs of the two procedures. Secondary outcomes were short-term outcome and the utilization of hospital resources to manage the postoperative course. Hundred and fifty-two patients with rectal cancer (66 lapTME, 86 taTME) were included in the study. Surgical supplies required for taTME procedure exceeded the cost of lapTME of 754,54€. The duration of surgery was not significantly different between the two approaches (266 ± 92.85 vs 271 ± 83.63, p = 0.50). Short-term outcomes were comparable including postoperative complication rate (17 vs 20%, p = 0.68), reintervention rate, and length of stay. There was no difference in hospital resources utilization to manage postoperative course including blood test, diagnostics, consultations, and medications. TaTME has higher intraoperative costs in terms of supplies with respect to lapTME. Short-term outcomes and hospital resources to manage postoperative course are comparable.

The best approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) remains controversial. Two recently described approaches are robotic TME (RTME) and transanal TME (TaTME). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes between robotic surgery and TaTME in patients undergoing rectal cancer resection. We structured this systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines 2020 and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines. An electronic search of relevant literature was conducted on 20 May 2023. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023435259). Eleven eligible nonrandomised studies were included in this study. The study included 2796 patients (RTME = 1800; TaTME = 996). The RTME group had a higher rate of complete TME. However, no significant differences were observed in mortality, morbidity, severe complications, operative time, conversion rate, anastomotic leak, hospital stay, CRM-positive resection margin, distal resection margin, number of harvested lymph nodes, abdominoperineal resection (APR) rate, or local recurrence between the RTME and TaTME groups. The RTME technique may ensure a higher rate of complete TME than TaTME. However, no significant differences were observed in most postoperative outcomes and oncological safety between the RTME and TaTME groups. Evidence does not conclusively favor one technique over the other, highlighting the need for additional randomized controlled trials to better define their roles in rectal cancer surgery.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has potential benefits of better visual control, especially in male patients with a high body mass index and low rectal cancer. However, this method has not yet been validated in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic (lap) TME. From October 2013 to January 2015, consecutive patients undergoing transanal or laparoscopic TME for biopsy-proven mrT1-4aN0-2M0 rectal cancer were included in a prospective database. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2 and higher and patients undergoing partial mesorectal excision were excluded. This analysis focused on short-term surgical outcomes. From October 2013 to January 2015, 22taTME procedures and 23 laparoscopic TME procedures were performed. Patient characteristics were comparable between groups, but more patients in the taTME group underwent neoadjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy (87 vs. 48%, p=0.006). Median operative time was 320min in the taTME group and 305min in the lapTME group. There was one conversion in each group, but the transanal procedure was converted to laparoscopic resection. Transanal specimen extraction was performed in 86 versus 48% patients in taTME and lapTME groups accordingly (p=0.021). There was no post-operative mortality and post-operative morbidity in the taTME and lapTME groups was similar (27 vs. 26%). One patient in the taTME group had positive circumferential resection margins. Oncologic results from resected specimens were comparable. Our initial experience demonstrates comparable short-term results for taTME and lap TME. Further investigation is necessary to assess long-term functional and oncologic outcomes.

Introduction Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has revolutionized the surgical techniques for lower-third rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to analyze the outcomes of quality indicators of TaTME for rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic TME (LaTME). Methods A cohort prospective study with 50 (14 female and 36 male) patients, with a mean age of 67 (range: 55.75 to 75.25) years, who underwent surgery for rectal cancer. In total, 20 patients underwent TaTME, and 30, LaTME. Every TaTME procedure was performed by experienced colorectal surgeons. The sample was divided into two groups (TaTME and LaTME), and the quality indicators of the surgery for rectal cancer were analyzed. Results There were no statistically significant differences regarding the patients and the main characteristics of the tumor (age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score, body mass index [BMI], tumoral stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and distance from the tumor to the external anal margin) between the two groups. The rates of: postoperative morbidity (TaTME: 35%; LaTME: 30%; p = 0.763); mortality (0%); anastomotic leak (TaTME: 10%; LaTME: 13%; p = 0.722); wound infection (TaTME: 0%; LaTME: 3.3%; p = 0.409); reoperation (TaTME: 5%; LaTME: 6.6%; p = 0.808); and readmission (TaTME: 5%; LaTME: 0%; p = 0.400), as well as the length of the hospital stay (TaTME: 13.5 days; LaTME: 11 days; p = 0.538), were similar in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of positive circumferential resection margin (TaTME: 5%; LaTME: 3.3%; p = 0.989) and positive distal resection margin (TaTME: 0%; LaTME: 3.3%; p = 0.400), the completeness of the TME (TaTME: 100%; LaTME: 100%), and the number of lymph nodes harvested (TaTME: 15; LaTME: 15.5; p = 0.882) between two groups. Conclusion Transanal total mesorectal excision is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for middle/lower-third rectal cancer.

Currently, the majority cases of the novel down-to-up transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) were performed in a hybrid approach with conventional laparoscopic assistance because of less operative difficulty. However, although cases are limited, the successes of TaTME in a pure approach (without laparoscopic assistance) indicate that the costly and less mini-invasive hybrid TaTME could be potentially avoided. In the present single institutional, prospective study, we attempted to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of this approach in rectal cancer by evaluating the short-term results of our first 20 TaTME cases. For the majority of cases, we adopted a strategy that laparoscopic assistance was not introduced unless it was required during the planned pure TaTME procedure. A total of 20 patients (12 males and 8 females) were analyzed in this study, including 11 cases (55%) of pure TaTME and 9 cases (45%) of hybrid TaTME. Overall, the median operative time was 200min (range 70-420), along with a median estimated blood loss of 50ml (range 20-800). Morbidity rate was 20% (one urethral injury, two urinary retentions, one anastomotic hemorrhage and one mild anastomotic leak). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 12 (range 1-20). All specimens were intact in mesorectum without positive distal and circumferential resection margins. Among the 15 patients who were preoperatively scheduled to undertake pure TaTME, four patients (26.7%) required converting to laparoscopic assistance. Moreover, among these 15 patients, the results of the comparative analysis between female and male subgroups favor the former, suggesting easier operation in them. This preliminary study demonstrates that TaTME in rectal cancer is safe and feasible. The strategy of not introducing laparoscopic assistance unless it is required while performing the planned pTaTME should be cautiously explored. Further studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are warranted.