Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision Group Research Articles

Analysis of Bacterial Culture of Fluid in the Surgical Area in Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision and Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision.

Purpose: To investigate the clinical value of the bacterial culture of fluid in the surgical area in laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision (Lap-taTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (Lap-TME). Methods: Clinical data of 106 patients with rectal cancer who had undergone surgery were retrospectively collected, including 56 patients in the Lap-taTME group and 50 patients in the Lap-TME group. In the Lap-taTME group, the initial pelvic fluid, the rectal cavity fluid after purse-string suture, and the pelvic cavity fluid after anastomosis were collected and recorded as culture No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, respectively. In the Lap-TME group, culture No. 1 and No. 3 were collected as done in the Lap-taTME group. The culture results and postoperative complications were statistically analyzed. Results: The positive rate of culture No. 1 was zero in both groups, and there were 6 cases (10.7%) with positive culture No. 2 in the Lap-taTME group. However, the number of patients with positive culture No. 3 (7, 12.5%) and cumulative positive culture cases (11, 19.6%) in the Lap-taTME group were significantly higher than those in the Lap-TME group (0) (all P < .05). Pelvic infection occurred in 4 (7.1%) of the 11 cases (19.6%) with positive culture in the Lap-taTME group, accounting for 36.4% (4/11). There were no significant intergroup differences in anastomotic leakage and pelvic infection (all P > .05). Conclusion: Positive bacterial culture of fluid during Lap-taTME indicates an increased risk of pelvic infection after operation. Lap-taTME is more prone to intraoperative contamination than Lap-TME but does not significantly increase the risk of postoperative pelvic infection.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision Surgery in Rectal Cancer: Analysis of Medium-Term Oncological Outcomes.

Background. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), thus improving the quality of the surgery. So far, many studies have reported the technical feasibility and short-term oncological results of robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) in treating rectal cancer (RC); however, only a few evaluated the survival and long-term oncological outcomes. The following study compared the medium-term oncological data, 3-year overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) of L-TME and R-TME in patients with rectal cancer. Methods. In this retrospective study, records of patients (patients with stage I-III rectal cancer) who underwent surgery (127 cases of L-TME and 148 cases of R-TME) at the Gansu Provincial Hospital between June 2016 and March 2018 were included in the analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated the 3-year OS and DFS for all patients treated with curative intent. Results. The conversion rate was significantly higher, and the postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the L-TME group than in the R-TME group (all P<.05). Major complications were significantly lower in the robotic group (P<.05). The 3-year DFS rate (for all stages) was 74.8% for L-TME and 85.8% for R-TME (P = .021). For disease stage III, the 3-year DFS and OS were significantly higher in the R-TME group (P<.05). Conclusion. R-TME can achieve better oncological outcomes and is more beneficial for RC patients compared with L-TME, especially for those with stage III rectal cancers. Nevertheless, further randomized controlled trials and a longer follow-up period are needed to confirm these findings.

Comparison of postoperative laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision on lower urinary tract function in men with rectal cancer.

This study investigated male voiding dysfunction (VD) or lower urinary tract function in rectal cancer (RC) patients after laparoscopic or open total mesorectal excision with pelvic autonomic nerve preservation (PANP). One hundred and eighty-seven male RC patients admitted between January 2016 and May 2019 were enrolled in this study, 112 of whom underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) and 75 underwent open total mesorectal excision (OTME). The International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) was compared between the two groups. The postoperative IPSS in patients with RC was elevated on day 7 and gradually decreased during the first month after surgery. Compared with the OTME group, the IPSS scores decreased less in the LTME group at week 1, and months 1 and 3 postoperatively (6.82 ± 2.13 vs 10.15 ± 3.86, 5.70 ± 2.45 vs 7.21 ± 2.0, and 5.01 ± 2.09 vs 5.75 ± 2.55, respectively; P < 0.05). The VD rate was significantly lower in the LTME group than the OTME group at 1, 2, and 3 weeks postoperatively (21.4% vs 26.8%,13.4% vs 25.3%, and 9.8% vs18.6%, respectively; P < 0.05); however, there was no major difference in the incidence of VD 6months postoperatively between the two groups (P > 0.05). VD was more frequent in the OTME group than the LTME group 6months postoperatively, but the difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio=1.857, 95% CI, 0.964-3.645, P=0.064). LTME may be superior to OTME with respect to PANP of lower urinary tract function in males with RC.

Transanal (TaTME) vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of early and long-term outcomes.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been proposed as an alternative to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME) in distal rectal tumors. Despite encouraging reports, mid- and long-term oncological results are limited. In this study, we aimed at comparing TaTME versus LapTME in patients with mid and low rectal cancer. From January 2012 to December 2019, all patients undergoing either TaTME or LapTME for rectal adenocarcinoma ≤ 12cm from the anal verge were included. Demographic, clinical, and follow-up data were retrieved from a prospective and audited database, and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed. A total of 144 patients were included, 38 underwent TaTME, and 106 LapTME. The median age was 68.0 (60.2-75.8) years, and 96 (66.7%) patients were male. Median follow-up was 30.6 (20.2-39.8) months in the TaTME group and 49.5 (22.6-68.5) months in the LapTME group. There was one (2.6%) local recurrence in the TaTME group and two (1.9%) in the LapTME group (p = 0.788). There was no difference in the 3-year disease-free survival between groups both in the primary (93% vs. 86%, p = 0.274) and the propensity score-matched analyses (93% vs. 81%, p = 0.132). Conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the TaTME group (none vs. 4 (11.4%), p = 0.041). Intra- and postoperative complications, length of stay, specimen quality, and resection margins were similar between groups. In our experience, TaTME was associated with a less frequent conversion to open surgery but otherwise had similar post-operative results compared to LapTME. Local recurrence and 3-year survival rates were similar.

Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Comparing functional outcomes between transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is concern that transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) may result in poorer functional outcomes as compared to laparoscopic TME (LaTME). These concerns arise from the fact that TaTME entails both a low anastomosis and prolonged dilatation of the anal sphincter from the transanal platform. This paper aimed to assess the comparative functional outcomes following TaTME and LaTME, with a focus on anorectal and genitourinary outcomes. A meta-analysis and systematic review was performed on available literature between 2000 and 2020 from the PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases. All comparative studies assessing the functional outcomes following taTME versus LaTME in adults were included. Functional anorectal and genitourinary outcomes were evaluated using validated scoring systems. A total of seven studies were included, consisting of one randomised controlled trial and six non-randomised studies. There were 242 (52.0%) and 233 (48.0%) patients in the TaTME and LaTME groups respectively. Anorectal functional outcomes were similar in both groups with regard to LARS scores (30.6 in the TaTME group and 28.3 in the LaTME group), Jorge-Wexner incontinence scores, and EORTC QLQ C30/29 scores. Genitourinary function was similar in both groups with IPSS scores of 5.5 to 8.0 in the TaTME group, and 3.5 to 10.1 in the LaTME group. (p = 0.835). This review corroborates findings from previous studies in showing that the transanal approach is not associated with increased anal sphincter damage. Further prospective clinical trials are needed in this field of research.

Short- and mid-term outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

PurposeThe current meta-analysis combining mid and low rectal cancer with no meta-analysis only for low rectal cancer was seen. This meta-analysis was to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for low rectal cancer.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted using the web-based databases; China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Database, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Wanfang Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated using the Jadad scale and non-RCTs (NRCs) were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsTen studies (2 RCTs and 8 NRCs) involving 772 patients were included. Among them, 378 patients underwent TaTME and 394 patients underwent LaTME. Compared with the LaTME group, the conversion rate was low (risk ratio [RR], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11–0.54; P < 0.001), the circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement was low (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27–0.86; P = 0.010), and the hospital stay was short (mean difference, −1.72; 95% CI, −2.89 to −0.55; P = 0.004) in the TaTME group. No significant differences were seen in the mesorectal resection quality, CRM distance, distal resection margin (DRM) involvement, DRM distance, local R1 resection, intraoperative complications, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, severe morbidity, mortality, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, and local recurrence rate (P > 0.05).ConclusionThe TaTME is a promising surgical technique and is fully a safe and efficacious option in managing low rectal cancer.

Three-year outcome after transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter comparative analysis

BackgroundFor patients with mid and distal rectal cancer, robust evidence on long-term outcome and causal treatment effects of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is lacking. This multicentre retrospective cohort study aimed to assess whether TaTME reduces locoregional recurrence rate compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME).MethodsConsecutive patients with rectal cancer within 12 cm from the anal verge and clinical stage II-III were selected from three institutional databases. Outcome after TaTME (Nov 2011 - Feb 2018) was compared to a historical cohort of patients treated with LapTME (Jan 2000 - Feb 2018) using the inverse probability of treatment weights method. The primary endpoint was three-year locoregional recurrence.ResultsA total of 710 patients were analysed, 344 in the TaTME group and 366 in the LapTME group. At 3 years, cumulative locoregional recurrence rates were 3.6% (95% CI, 1.1–6.1) in the TaTME group and 9.6% (95% CI, 6.5–12.7) in the LapTME group (HR = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.23–0.69; p = 0.001). Three-year cumulative disease-free survival rates were 74.3% (95% CI, 68.8–79.8) and 68.6% (95% CI, 63.7–73.5) (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65–1.02; p = 0.078) and three-year overall survival 87.2% (95% CI, 82.7–91.7) and 82.2% (95% CI, 78.0–86.2) (HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53–1.03; p = 0.077), respectively. In patients who underwent sphincter preservation procedures, TaTME was associated with a significantly better disease-free survival (HR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62–0.98; p = 0.033).ConclusionsThese findings suggest that TaTME may improve locoregional recurrence and disease-free survival rates among patients with mid and distal locally advanced rectal cancer.

Comparison of short-term efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancer

Background/objectiveThe transanal total mesorectal excision(TaTME) of rectal malignancies is largely referred to as treatment of mid to low, especially low rectal cancer. This study was to compare the short-term efficacy of TaTME and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for low rectal cancer. MethodsA prospective study of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical surgery at the General Surgery of Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital from January 2017 to December 2019 was performed. The general information, perioperative results and pathological results of the two groups were compared. ResultsA total of 64 patients were included in the study, 32 in the TaTME group and 32 in the LaTME group. The clinical characteristics of the two groups was comparable (P > 0.05). The operation time in the TaTME group was longer than that in the LaTME group (212.59 ± 28.71min vs 187.66 ± 27.15min, P = 0.001), no significant differences were seen in the conversion rate, intraoperative complications, morbidity, serious morbidity, anastomotic leak, unplanned reoperation and hospital stay(P > 0.05). The circumferential resection margin (CRM) distance in the TaTME group was longer than that in the LaTME group (6.81 ± 2.99 mm vs 5.21 ± 3.06 mm, P = 0.039). The inter-group difference in terms of harvested lymph nodes, mesorectum integrity, CRM involvement, DRM distance, R1 resection, complete remission, pathological T stage, pathological N stage and pathological TNM stage was not significant (P > 0.05). ConclusionsTaTME is a promising surgical technique and maybe offers a safe and feasible alternative to LaTME in managing low rectal cancer.

Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Cohort Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the intestinal function recovery time and other short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) for rectal cancer. This is a retrospective study using a prospectively collected database. Patients' records were obtained from Gansu Provincial Hospital between July 2015 and October 2017. Eighty patients underwent R-TME, and 116 with the same histopathological stage of the tumor underwent an L-TME. Both operations were performed by the same surgeon, comparing intra- and postoperative outcomes intergroups. The time to the first passage of flatus (P < 0.001), the time to the first postoperative oral fluid intake (P < 0.001), and the length of hospital stay (P < 0.01) of the R-TME group were about three days faster than those in the L-TME group. The rate of conversion to open laparotomy (P = 0.038) and postoperative urinary retention (P = 0.016) were significantly lower in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group. Intraoperative blood loss of the R-TME group was more than that of the L-TME group (P < 0.01).The operation time, number of lymph nodes harvested, and rate of positive circumferential resection margin were similar intergroup. The total cost of the R-TME group was higher than that of the L-TME group, but with a lack of statistical significance (85,623.91 ± 13,310.50 vs 67,356.79 ± 17,107.68 CNY, P = 0.084). The R-TME is safe and effective and has better postoperative short-term outcomes and faster intestinal function recovery time, contrasting with the L-TME. The large, multicenter, prospective studies were needed to validate the advantages of robotic surgery system used in rectal cancer.

Transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a case-matched study comparing TaTME versus standard laparoscopic TME.

BackgroundTransanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is emerging as a novel alternative to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME). The aim of this study was to compare clinical and pathological results from these two techniques in patients undergoing rectal resections because of low rectal cancer.Materials and methodsThirty-five patients undergoing TaTME were matched with 35 patients operated on using LaTME. Composite primary endpoint (complete TME, negative circumferential resection margin [pCRM], and distal resection margin [pDRM]) was used to assess pathological quality specimens. Secondary outcomes included operative and postoperative parameters (operative time, total blood loss, postoperative morbidity, length of stay, 30-day mortality).ResultsComposite primary endpoint was achieved by 85% of subjects in the TaTME group and 82% of subjects in the LaTME group (P=0.66). Mean pCRM was 1.1±1.29 vs 0.99±0.78 mm (P=0.25). Distal pDRM was 1.57±0.92 and 1.98±1.22 cm (P=0.15). In the TaTME and LaTME groups, respectively, complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 89% and 83% of subjects, while excision was nearly complete for the remaining 11% and 17% (P=0.23).ConclusionTaTME appears to be a noninferior alternative to laparoscopic surgery. TaTME allows for quality retrieval of surgical specimens with comparable clinical outcomes with LaTME.

Efficacies of transanal total mesorectal excision and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Objective To compare the clinical efficacies of transanal total mesorectal excision(TaTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME)for rectal cancer (RC). Methods The case-control matching method and retrospective cohort study were conducted. The clinicopathological data of 100 RC patients who were admitted to the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between July 2014 and January 2016 were collected. Of 100 patients, 50 undergoing TaTME and 50 undergoing LapTME were respectively allocated into the TaTME and LapTME groups by case-control matching method. Observation indicators: (1) operation situations: operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, cases with intraoperative complications and preventive stoma; (2) postoperative recovery: time for diet intake, time for out-of-bed activity, occurrence of complications within 30 days postoperatively and duration of hospital stay; (3) postoperative pathological examinations: postoperative pathological specimen length, number of lymph node harvest, distance from lower boundary of tumor to distant margin and cases with positive circumferential margin; (4) follow-up. Follow-up using outpatient examination and network tracing was performed to detect local tumor recurrence and distant metastasis up to December 2016. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as ±s and comparison between groups was analyzed using the paired-samples t test. Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M (range). Comparisons of count data were analyzed using the chi-square test. Comparisons of measurement data with skewed distribution and ranked data were done by the nonparametric test. Results (1) Operation situations: operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, cases with intraoperative complications and preventive stoma were (259±111)minutes, 100 mL (range, 20-2 000 mL), 2, 28 in the TaTME group and (220±80)minutes, 50 mL (range, 20-1 000 mL), 1, 33 in the LapTME group, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (t=1.90, Z=-0.30, χ2=0.34, 0.01, P>0.05). (2) Postoperative recovery: time for diet intake and time for out-of-bed activity were (1.6±0.5)days, (2.6±0.6)days in the TaTME group and (2.4±0.5)days, (3.5±0.6)days in the LapTME group, respectively, with statistically significant differences (t=8.90, 11.30, P 0.05). Cases with urinary retention within 30 days postoperatively were 3 and 0 in the TaTME and LapTME groups, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (χ2=3.00, P 0.05). (3) Postoperative pathological examinations: postoperative pathological specimen length, number of lymph node harvest, distance from lower boundary of tumor to distant margin and cases with positive circumferential margin were (11±3)cm, 13±5, (1.3±0.7)cm, 0 in the TaTME group and (12±3)cm, 13±5, (1.3±0.7)cm, 1 in the LapTME group, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (t=0.50, 0.20, 0.10, χ2=1.00, P>0.05). (4) Follow-up: 100 patients were followed up for 9-27 months, with an average time of 18 months. During the follow-up, distant metastasis and local tumor recurrence were detected in 2, 3 patients of TaTME group and in 2, 2 patients of LapTME group, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (χ2=0.00, 0.20, P>0.05). Conclusions TaTME for RC is safe and feasible. Compared with LapTME, TaTME not only achieves identical pathological quality without increasing intra- and post-operative complications, but also benefits postoperative recovery of patients. Key words: Rectal neoplasms; Total mesorectal excision; Transanal; Laparoscopy

Male sexual function after total mesorectal excision: a comparison between laparoscopic and open surgery during the learning curve period.

This study assessed male sexual function using a specific and validated questionnaire, the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), in patients subjected to open total mesorectal excision (OTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) and compared it with a control group. The inclusion criteria consisted of male patients with an active sexual life before surgery subjected to OTME or LTME at the Coloproctological Unit of the Clinics Hospital, Minas Gerais Federal University, between January 2005 and September 2009. The IIEF questionnaire was used. The control group comprised 30 randomly selected men (older than 35 y of age) without previous pelvic or abdominal surgery and without any genitourinary complaints. Between January 2005 and September 2009, 77 male patients were subjected to total mesorectal excision, with 26 meeting the inclusion criteria and answering the questionnaire: 13 in the OTME group and 13 in the LTME group. When the 3 groups were compared in each IIEF domain, there were significant differences in erectile function (P=0.05), orgasm and ejaculation (P=0.009), sexual intercourse satisfaction (P=0.01), and overall satisfaction (P=0.025), favoring the LTME and control groups. No difference was found in sexual desire (P=0.285). LTME may have the benefit of preserving male sexual function compared with OTME, even in the learning curve period.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is proven to result in faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications and better cosmetic results with equal oncologic results. These short-term benefits are expected to be similar for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial due to the lack of definitive long-term results. Thus, the expected short-term benefits can only be of interest when oncological results are at least equal. To evaluate the differences in short- and long-term results after elective laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for the resection of rectal cancer compared with open total mesorectal excision (OTME). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1990 to February 2013), EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2013) and Current Controlled Trials (February 2013). We handsearched the reference lists of the included articles for missed studies. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTME and OTME, reporting at least one of our outcome measures, was considered for inclusion. Two authors independently assessed study quality according to the CONSORT statement, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. We identified 45 references out of 953 search results, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 3528 rectal cancer patients. We did not consider the risk of bias of the included studies to have impacted on the quality of the evidence. Data were analysed according to an intention-to-treat principle with a mean conversion rate of 14.5% (range 0% to 35%) in the laparoscopic group.There was moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic and open TME had similar effects on five-year disease-free survival (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76 to1.38, 4 studies, N = 943). The estimated effects of laparoscopic and open TME on local recurrence and overall survival were similar, although confidence intervals were wide, both with moderate quality evidence (local recurrence: OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57 to1.39 and overall survival rate: OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.87 to1.52). There was moderate to high quality evidence that the number of resected lymph nodes and surgical margins were similar between the two groups.For the short-term results, length of hospital stay was reduced by two days (95% CI -3.22 to -1.10), moderate quality evidence), and the time to first defecation was shorter in the LTME group (-0.86 days; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.54). There was moderate quality evidence that 30 days morbidity were similar in both groups (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1). There were fewer wound infections (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93) and fewer bleeding complications (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.93) in the LTME group.There was no clear evidence of any differences in quality of life after LTME or OTME regarding functional recovery, bladder and sexual function. The costs were higher for LTME with differences up to GBP 2000 for direct costs only. We have found moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has similar effects to open TME on long term survival outcomes for the treatment of rectal cancer. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to imprecision and further research could impact on our confidence in this result. There is moderate quality evidence that it leads to better short-term post-surgical outcomes in terms of recovery for non-locally advanced rectal cancer. Currently results are consistent in showing a similar disease-free survival and overall survival, and for recurrences after at least three years and up to 10 years, although due to imprecision we cannot rule out superiority of either approach. We await long-term data from a number of ongoing and recently completed studies to contribute to a more robust analysis of long-term disease free, overall survival and local recurrence.

Urinary and Erectile Function in Men After Total Mesorectal Excision by Laparoscopic or Robot‐Assisted Methods for the Treatment of Rectal Cancer: A Case‐Matched Comparison

Urinary and sexual dysfunction are recognized complications of rectal cancer surgery in men. This study compared robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (RTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) with regard to these functional outcomes. A series of 32 men who underwent RTME between February 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 were matched 1:1 with patients who underwent LTME. The matching criteria were age, body mass index, tumor distance from the anal verge, neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, and tumor stage. Urinary and erectile function were evaluated using the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) and the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scale. Data were collected from the two groups at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery and compared. The mean IPSS score did not differ between the two groups at baseline at any point of measurement. The mean baseline IIEF-5 score was similar between the two groups and was decreased at 3 months. The mean IIEF-5 score was significantly higher in the RTME group at 6 months than in the LTME group (14.1 ± 6.1 vs. 9.4 ± 6.6; p = 0.024). The interval decrease in IIEF-5 scores was significantly higher in the LTME group than in the RTME group at 6 months (4.9 ± 4.5 vs. 9.2 ± 4.7; p = 0.030). The men in the RTME group experienced earlier restoration of erectile function than did those in the LTME group. Bladder function was similar during the 12 months after RTME or LTME.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Total Mesorectal Excision for Middle and Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Results of Randomized Controlled Trials

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is to compare LTME and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) as the primary treatment for patients with middle and low rectal cancer with regard to short-term outcomes. Literature searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) and manual searches up to October 30, 2011 were performed. Prospective randomized clinical trials were eligible if they included patients with middle and low rectal cancer treated by LTME versus OTME. Fixed and random effects models were used. Review Manager version 5.1 software was used for pooled estimates. Four RCTs enrolling 624 participants (LTME group, 308 cases; OTME group, 316 cases) were included in the meta-analysis. LTME for rectal cancer was associated with a significantly longer operative time but significantly less intraoperative blood loss and earlier time to pass first flatus. We found no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes, overall morbidity, and perioperative mortality rates between the two groups. Time to resume liquid diet, time to resume normal diet, and length of hospital stay, although not significantly different between the two groups, did suggest a positive trend toward LTME. It may be concluded that LTME is a safe and effective alternative to OTME and is justifiable under the setting of clinical trials. Additional RCTs that compare LTME and OTME and investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of LTME are required to determine the advantages of LTME over OTME.

Long-term outcome of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer

This study aimed to assess the feasibility and long-term outcome of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for middle and lower rectal cancer. Retrospective assessment was performed on 612 patients with middle and low rectal cancer in the surgery department of our hospital. Three-hundred and three patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME), and 309 patients underwent open TME (OTME). All the data regarding patient details, operative variables and the short- and long-term outcomes were collected and compared. The sphincter-preserving rates of the two groups were similar. The conversion rate in LTME was 2.31% (seven cases). Fourteen cases (6.67%) of protective diverting stoma were fashioned in the LTME group compared with 57 cases (26.64%) in the OTME group. The postoperative morbidity was the same in these two groups, while the postoperative period until bowel movement and hospital discharge was shorter in the LTME group (P < 0.01). The median follow-up period was 34 (6–81) months for the LTME group and 36 (6–81) months for the OTME group. Local recurrence rates, the five-year disease-free survival rate and the five-year overall survival rate showed no difference between the two groups. Laparoscopic surgery is feasible and safe in patients with middle and lower rectal caner and can provide favorable short-term and long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus Open Total Mesorectal Excision: A Nonrandomized Comparative Prospective Trial in a Tertiary Center in Mexico City

Because definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer remains controversial. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has been proposed to have several short-term advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME). However, few prospective randomized studies have been performed. The main purpose of our study was to evaluate whether relevant differences in safety and efficacy exist after elective LTME for the treatment of rectal cancer compared with OTME in a tertiary referral medical center. This comparative nonrandomized prospective study analyzes data in 56 patients with middle and lower rectal cancer treated with low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection from November 2005 to November 2007. Follow-up was determined through office charts or direct patient contact. Statistical analysis was performed using chi2 test and Student's t test. Twenty-eight patients underwent LTME and 28 patients were in the OTME group. No conversion was required in the LTME group. Mean operating time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (LTME) (181.3 vs 206.1 min, P < 0.002). Less intraoperative blood loss and fewer postoperative complications were seen in the LTME group. Return of bowel motility was observed earlier after laparoscopic surgery. There was no 30-day mortality and the overall morbidity was 17 per cent in the LTME group versus 32 per cent in the OTME group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was greater in the laparoscopic group than in the OTME group (12.1 +/- 2 vs 9.3 +/- 3). Mean follow-up time was 12 months (range 9-24 months). No local recurrence was found. LTME is a feasible procedure with acceptable postoperative morbidity and low mortality, however it is technically demanding. This series confirms its safety, although oncologic results are at present comparable with the OTME published series with the limitation of a short followup period. Further randomized studies are necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome.

SO07 LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS OPEN TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION: A CASE‐CONTROL STUDY

Purpose Because definitive long‐term results are not yet available, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer remains unproven. The aim of this prospective non‐randomized study was to assess the feasibility and short‐term outcome of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) after 25–30 Gy preoperative radiotherapy and to compare the results with a matched‐control group of open TME (OTME).Methodology A series of 41 patients with primary rectal cancer underwent LTME for rectal cancer and were matched with a historical control group of 41 patients who underwent OTME. Both groups received preoperative short‐term radiotherapy.Results There was no mortality in the LTME group and 2% mortality in the OTME group. The overall postoperative morbidity was 37% in the LTME group and 51% in the OTME group, including an anastomotic leakage of 9 and 14% in the LTME and OTME groups respectively. A positive circumferential margin was found in 7% of patients in the LTME group and in 12% of the patients in the OTME group.Conclusion This study shows that LTME is technically feasible and can be performed safely. We show at least a similar surgical completeness using a laparoscopic technique.

Quality of life outcomes following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancers: A clinical control study

Aims To evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) with anal sphincter preservation (ASP) for low rectal cancers. Methods Patients undergoing LTME with ASP or open procedures (OTME) for low rectal cancers were prospectively followed up. All patients were treated in curative attempt and were free of local recurrence during the study. HRQoL was assessed by questionnaires during 3–6 months, 12–18 months, and 2–5 years after surgery. Results From June 2001 to March 2006, 125 patients undergoing LTME and 103 undergoing OTME were included in this study. In contrast to OTME patients, the LTME ones showed significantly better physical function during 3–6 months after surgery, less micturition problems within 12–18 months, less male sexual problems and better sexual function during 12–18 months after surgery, with better sexual enjoyment after 24 months postoperatively. Both groups showed significant improvement in most subscales from the first to the second assessment, and an improvement in sexual enjoyment from the second to the third assessment. The sexual function, micturition problems and male sexual problems in the LTME group significantly improved from the first to the second assessment, whereas the sexual function in the OTME group improved from the second to the third assessment. Conclusions Patients undergoing LTME for low rectal cancers can achieve superior postoperative HRQoL than patients undergoing OTME, with superior physical function, micturition function, overall sexual and male sexual functions in the short term, and better sexual enjoyment in the long term. The HRQoL of both LTME and OTME patients may be expected to improve over time, particularly over the first postoperative year.