Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Research Articles

Postoperative urinary retention following transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A randomized trial report from an experienced center

BackgroundTransanal total mesorectal excision has emerged as a potential solution to certain limitations associated with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients. Differences in surgical approaches have raised questions regarding their impact on the risk of postoperative urinary retention, with limited data available from large scale randomized clinical study. ObjectiveTo report incidence of postoperative urinary retention and evaluate the associated risk factors for transanal total mesorectal excision. DesignIn this randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials. gov NCT06147492), we retrieved 524 patients who received total mesorectal excision (TME) for stage I–III rectal cancer between June 2019 and April 2022, and the patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either taTME or laTME. PatientsWe enrolled 524 patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for stage I–III rectal cancer between June 2019 and April 2022. Main outcome measuresThe incidence of postoperative urinary retention. ResultsAmong the 524 enrolled patients, 261 were randomized to the laTME group, while 263 were were randomized the taTME group. The median age was 58 years, and 340 participants (64.8 %) were male. Notably, 37 individuals (7.0 %) experienced postoperative urinary retention during the follow-up period, with no significant disparity was observed between the taTME and laTME groups (6.8 % and 7.2 %, respectively, P = 0.98). Risk factors associated with PUR in patients following taTME encompassed early removal of the urinary catheter (P = 0.006), net infusion rate >4.09 ml kg−1.h−1 (P = 0.006), and an age surpassing 65 years (P = 0.0321). LimitationsThe generalizability of the findings outside specialist rectal cancer centers may be limited. ConclusionsTransanal total mesorectal excision was not found to heighten the risk of postoperative urinary retention. Nonetheless, it is advisable removing postoperative catheter beyond the initial day and exercising caution in the administration of intravenous fluids in clinical practice for taTME procedures.

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

The standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients' functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients' functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). A systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses. Nineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] -0.15 [-0.24 to -0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques. This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.

Functional Outcomes After Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) for Rectal Cancer: Results from the Phase II North American Multicenter Prospective Observational Trial.

To investigate fecal incontinence and defecatory, urinary, and sexual functional outcomes after taTME. Proctectomy for rectal cancer may result in alterations in defecatory, urinary, and sexual function that persist beyond 12 months. The recent multicenter Phase II taTME trial demonstrated the safety of taTME in patients with stage I-III tumors. Prospectively registered self-reported questionnaires were collected from 100 taTME patients. Fecal continence (FIQL, Wexner), defecatory function (COREFO), urinary function (IPSS), and sexual function (FSFI-female, IIEF-male) were assessed preoperatively (PQ), 3-4 months post-ileostomy closure (FQ1), and 12-18 months post-taTME (FQ2). Among 83 patients who responded at all three time points, FIQL, Wexner, and COREFO significantly worsened post-ileostomy closure. Between FQ1 and FQ2, FIQL lifestyle and coping, Wexner, and COREFO incontinence, social impact, frequency, and need for medication significantly improved, while FIQL depression and embarrassment did not change. IPSS did not change relative to preoperative scores. For females, FSFI declined for desire, orgasm, and satisfaction between PQ and FQ1, and did not improve between FQ1 and FQ2. In males, IIEF declined with no change between FQ1 and FQ2. Although taTME resulted in initial decline in defecatory function and fecal continence, most functional domains improved by 12 months after ileostomy closure, without returning to preoperative status. Urinary function was preserved while sexual function declined without improvement by 18 months post-taTME. Our results address patient expectations and inform shared decision-making regarding taTME.

Three-year disease-free survival after transanal vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer (TaLaR): A randomized clinical trial.

3516 Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has gained significant traction as an effective approach for treating rectal cancer. Many previous studies reported positive relevant short-term results, histopathological results and associated complications of taTME compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME). Nonetheless, long-term oncological outcomes of taTME remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the 3-year DFS of taTME with laTME. Methods: We conducted a phase 3, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial to compare the survival outcomes of taTME versus laTME in patients with rectal cancer located below the peritoneal reflection. This trial encompassed 16 hospitals across 10 provinces in China, with a total enrollment of 1,115 patients. We set the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoints for analysis. The analysis of the 3-year DFS was conducted following a predefined modified intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02966483. Results: The taTME group exhibited a 3-year DFS rate of 83.42%, and the laTME group achieved a 3-year DFS rate of 82.86%. The marginal difference of 0.56% between the DFS rates of the two groups (97.5% CI, −4.83 to 5.95, P < 0.0001 for noninferiority) suggests comparable outcomes. Moreover, the rates of local recurrence were 3.90% in the taTME group and 3.62% in the laTME group, indicating similar degrees of localized tumor control. Regarding overall survival, the taTME group demonstrated a rate of 94.50% compared to 92.01% in the laTME group. In the taTME group, patients who are male or underwent neoadjuvant showed a higher 3-year OS than that in the laTME group. Conclusions: In patients with mid-low rectal cancer, the 3-year DFS of taTME is not inferior to that of laTME. This study provides evidence supporting the clinical effectiveness of taTME in the treatment of rectal cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT02966483 .

Oncologic outcomes following transanal total mesorectal excision: the United States experience.

The benefits and short-term outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer have been demonstrated previously, but questions remain regarding the oncologic outcomes following this challenging procedure. The purpose of this study was to analyze the oncologic outcomes following taTME at high-volume centers in the USA. This was a multicenter, retrospective observational study of 8 tertiary care centers. All consecutive taTME cases for primary rectal cancer performed between 2011 and 2020 were included. Clinical, histopathologic, and oncologic data were analyzed. Primary endpoints were rate of local recurrence, distal recurrence, 3-year disease recurrence, and 3-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints included perioperative complications and TME specimen quality. A total of 391 patients were included in the study. The median age was 57years (IQR: 49, 66), 68% of patients were male, and the median BMI was 27.4 (IQR: 24.1, 31.0). TME specimen was complete or near complete in 94.5% of cases and the rates of positive circumferential radial margin and distal resection margin were 2.0% and 0.3%, respectively. Median follow-up time was 30.7months as calculated using reverse-KM estimator (CI 28.1-33.8) and there were 9 cases (2.5%) of local recurrence not accounting for competing risk. The 3-year estimated rate of disease recurrence was 19% (CI 15-25%) and the 3-year estimated overall survival was 90% (CI 87-94%). This large multicenter study confirms the oncologic safety and perioperative benefits of taTME for rectal cancer when performed by experienced surgeons at experienced referral centers.

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

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.

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

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

Conversion rate to open surgery during transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: a single-center experience

Minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer have demonstrated considerable advantages in terms of faster recovery and less post-operative complications. However, due to the complex anatomy and a limited surgical field, conversion to open surgery is still sometimes required, with a negative impact on the short-and long-term outcomes. The purpose of this study was to analyse the conversion rate to open abdominal surgery during laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) procedures performed at a high-volume Italian referral center. All consecutive TaTME performed for mid-to-low rectal cancer between 2015 and 2023 were reviewed, independently if treated with a primary anastomosis (with/without a diverting ostomy) or an end stoma. All procedures were performed using a standardized approach by the same surgical team. Patients with benign diagnosis that underwent different-from rectal resection procedures and cases pre-operatively scheduled for open surgery were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of conversion, defined as an un-planned intraoperative switch to open surgery using a midline laparotomy. Secondary aims included the comparison of patients who had a longer vs shorter operative time. Out of 220 patients, 210 were selected. In 187 cases, a primary anastomosis was performed, while 23 patients received a terminal colostomy (1 in the converted group; 22 in the full MIS- TaTME group, 10.6%). A surgical approach modification occurred in two cases, with a conversion rate of 0.95%. Median operative time was 281 min. Reasons for conversions included intra-operative difficulties impairing the mini-invasive procedure without intra-operative complications in one case, and difficulties in the laparoscopic control of an intraoperative bleeding due to a splenic lesion in another patient. Male sex and a higher BMI were found to be statistically significantly associated to longer operative time (respectively: p = 0.001 and p = 0.0025). In a high-volume center, a standardized TaTME is associated to a low conversion rate to open abdominal surgery.

Comparison of local excision and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesTo report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of radomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer for perioperative and oncological outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature retrieval via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane until December 2022 for RCTs which evaluated the efficacy and/or safety between TEM and TME for rectal cancer. Outcomes included operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, hospital stay, complication rates, recurrence rates, and mortality. Results: A total of 5 RCTs involving 545 patients (272 TEM versus 273 TME) were included for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the two groups for age, gender, and distance from lower border of tumor to anal verge. Meta-analysis found that the TEM group was significantly favorable than the TME group for blood loss (WMD: 172.01; 95 % CI: 212.78, −131.24; P < 0.00001), hospital stay (WMD: 2.58; 95 % CI: 3.01, −2.16; P < 0.00001), operative time (WMD: 81.86; 95 % CI: 87.51, −76.21; P < 0.00001) and transfusion rates (RR: 0.05; 95 % CI: 0.01, 0.38; P = 0.004). The complication rates (RR: 0.60; 95 % CI: 0.32, 1.11; P = 0.10), recurrence rates (RR: 1.10; 95 % CI: 0.66, 1.83; P = 0.72), and mortality (RR: 1.23; 95 % CI: 0.67, 2.26; P = 0.51) were similar in the two groups. Conclusions: TEM was an effective and safe approach with advantages in perioperative outcomes compared with TME approach. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the differences in surgical complications between TEM and TME group due to significant heterogeneity and instability.

Cytological Analysis of the Surgical Field During Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Study.

An unexpectedly large number of patients experienced local recurrence with transanal total mesorectal excision in Norway. This appears to be associated with cancer cell spillage during surgery. To investigate the surgical field cytology during transanal total mesorectal excision. This was a prospective cohort study. This study was conducted at a single center between June and December 2020. Forty patients with rectal cancer underwent transanal total mesorectal excision. Following the irrigation of the surgical field, the water specimens were cytologically evaluated at six representative steps. The first sample was used as an initial control. The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth samples were collected after the 1st purse-string suture, rectotomy, the 2nd purse-string suture, specimen resection, and anastomosis, respectively. The clinicopathological features and intraoperative complications of the patients were reviewed. The primary outcome was to evaluate the presence of cancer cells in washing cytological samples. Of the 40 consecutive patients enrolled in this study, 18 patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Incomplete first pursestring suture and rectal perforation were observed in 4 (10.0%) and 3 (7.5%) cases, respectively. In the first sample, 31 (77.5%) patients had malignant cells. Malignant findings were detected in two patients (5.0%) from the second to fifth samples. None of the sixth sample exhibited any malignant findings. This single center study had a small sample size. Cancer cells were initially detected by cytology, but only a few were observed throughout the procedure; however, cancer cells were not detected in the final surgical field. Further follow-up and novel studies are required to obtain clinically significant findings using cytology during transanal total mesorectal excision. See Video Abstract.

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.

Two-Team Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision and En Bloc Resection of the Lateral Pelvic Lymph Nodes, Main Iliac Vessels, and Pelvic Plexus for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer With Lateral Lymph Node Metastasis.

Here, we describe the precise surgical technique for a novel procedure involving 2-team transanal total mesorectal excision with en bloc lateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) dissection combined with resection of the involved main internal iliac vessels and pelvic plexus. From September 2020 to May 2023, 4 patients underwent the procedure at our hospital. The operation time and blood loss were 272 to 412 minutes and 10 to 124mL, respectively. No patients required conversion to open surgery or exhibited Clavien-Dindo grade III or worse postoperative complications, although 2 developed grade II urinary dysfunction. All surgical margins were negative. Our novel 2-team method can facilitate safe and satisfactory surgery, even for highly advanced rectal cancer. The transanal approach offers excellent visibility and operability, even during LPLN and adjacent structure dissection. Furthermore, initial dissection of the distal branches of the iliac vessels prevents excessive lymphatic tissue congestion, facilitating easier, and clearer dissection.

Comparison of the short-term surgical outcomes of lateral lymph node dissection for low rectal cancer using a robotic-assisted transabdominal approach alone or supported by a transanal approach.

Lateral lymph node metastases are a major cause of local recurrence after surgery for advanced low rectal cancer. Lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) may reduce the risk of local recurrence in patients with suspected lateral lymph node metastasis. Recent reports have shown that robotic-assisted LLND can help to reduce the postoperative complication rate, such as urinary disturbance. Furthermore, with the advent of transanal total mesorectal excision, a novel LLND procedure that combines a transabdominal approach with a transanal approach has been reported. This study aimed to clarify the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted LLND supported by a transanal approach for advanced low rectal cancer. Thirty-nine patients diagnosed to have low rectal cancer between June 2019 and May 2023 were retrospectively enrolled and divided according to whether they underwent LLND via a robotic-assisted transabdominal approach alone (transabdominal group, n = 19) or in combination with a transanal approach (2team group, n = 20). The patient characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. The total operation time was significantly shorter in the 2team group than in the transabdominal group (366min vs. 513min, P < 0.001), as was the time taken to perform unilateral LLND (64min vs. 114min, P < 0.001). Furthermore, there was significantly less intraoperative bleeding in the 2team group (30mL vs. 80mL, P = 0.004). There was no significant between-group difference in postoperative complications. The incidence of postoperative urinary disturbance was satisfactory at 5% in both groups. The operation time for LLND performed by a robotic-assisted transabdominal approach was shortened when supported by a transanal approach. The frequency of postoperative urinary disturbance was low in both groups. Therefore, robotic-assisted abdominal LLND supported by a transanal approach can be considered a promising treatment option for advanced low rectal cancer.

Long-term oncological outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer: a retrospective analysis of 2502 patients.

Transanal total mesorectal resection (taTME) has recently emerged as a promising surgical approach for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer. However, there is limited evidence on the long-term survival outcomes associated with taTME. This retrospective study aimed to compare the overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cancer-specific survival of taTME and laparoscopic TME (laTME) in patients with mid-low rectal cancer. From July 2014 to June 2022, a total of 3627 patients were identified from two prospective cohorts: the laparoscopic rectal surgery cohort and the CNTAES cohort. To balance the baseline characteristics between the taTME and laTME groups, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. A total of 2502 patients were included in the study. Prior to PSM, the laTME group comprised 1853 patients, while the taTME group comprised 649 patients. The 5-year OS (82.9% vs. 80.4%, P =0.202) and 5-year DFS (74.4% vs. 72.5%, P =0.167) were comparable between the taTME and laTME groups. After PSM, the taTME group showed no statistically significant difference in the 5-year OS (83.1% vs. 79.2%, P =0.101) and 5-year DFS (74.8% vs. 72.1%, P =0.135) compared to the laTME group. Subgroup analysis further suggested that taTME may potentially reduce the risk of death [hazard ratio 0.652; (95% CI, 0.452-0.939)] and disease recurrence [hazard ratio 0.736; (95% CI, 0.562-0.965)] specifically in patients with low rectal cancer. In this study, taTME demonstrated comparable oncologic safety to laTME in patients with mid-low rectal cancer. Moreover, the results indicate that taTME may confer potential survival benefits for patients with low rectal cancer.

Utero-ovarian transposition before pelvic radiation in a patient with rectal cancer: a case report and systemic literature review.

To describe a case of utero-ovarian transposition (UOT) before pelvic radiation in a patient with rectal cancer and provide a systematic literature review on all reported cases of UOT. We performed a prospective collection and revision of clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative data from a patient who underwent UOT. In addition, a systematic review of the literature available to date on all cases of UOT was realized, and 14 patients from 10 articles were included. We reported the case of a 28-year-old nulligravida patient who was diagnosed with a low-grade rectal adenocarcinoma and underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, followed by transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Before starting neoadjuvant oncological therapies, the patient underwent laparoscopic UOT. The intervention was performed without complications, and the patient received neoadjuvant oncological treatments as planned. TaTME and uterus repositioning were completed six weeks after the end of radiotherapy. No complications were observed during the first 9 postoperative months. Adequate utero-ovarian perfusion was assessed by Doppler ultrasound, cervicovaginal anastomosis appeared to have healed correctly, and the patient experienced menstrual bleeding. Data from the literature review of all reported cases of UOT were presented and discussed. UOT represents a valuable option to preserve fertility in patients requiring pelvic radiotherapy. This study provides additional evidence on the feasibility and safety of performing UOT.

Is survival after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) worse than that after traditional total mesorectal excision? A retrospective propensity score-adjusted cohort study.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was developed to provide better vision during resection of the mesorectum. Conflicting results have shown an increase in local recurrence and shorter survival after taTME. This study compared the outcomes of taTME and abdominal (open, laparoscopic, robotic) total mesorectal excision (abTME). Patients who underwent taTME or abTME for stages I-III rectal cancer and who received an anastomosis were included. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively conducted database was performed. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Risk factors were adjusted by propensity score matching (PSM). The secondary endpoints were local recurrence rates and combined poor pathological outcomes. From 2012 to 2020, a total of 189 patients underwent taTME, and 119 underwent abTME; patients were followed up for a mean of 54.7 (SD 24.2) and 78.4 (SD 34.8) months, respectively (p < 0.001). The 5-year survival rates after taTME and abTME were not significantly different after PSM: OS: 78.2% vs. 88.6% (p = 0.073), CSS: 87.4% vs. 92.1% (p = 0.359), and DFS: 69.3% vs. 80.9% (p = 0.104), respectively. No difference in the local recurrence rate was observed (taTME, n = 10 (5.3%); abTME, n = 10 (8.4%); p = 0.280). Combined poor pathological outcomes were more frequent after abTME (n = 36, 34.3%) than after taTME (n = 35, 19.6%) (p = 0.006); this difference was nonsignificant according to multivariate analysis (p = 0.404). taTME seems to be a good treatment option for patients with rectal cancer and is unlikely to significantly affect local recurrence or survival. However, further investigations concerning the latter are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0496910).

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.

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. 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. 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). 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

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. 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). 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). 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.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Low Anterior Resection Syndrome following Trans-Anal Total Mesorectal Excision.

Trans-anal total mesorectal excision (Ta-TME) is a novel approach for the resection of rectal cancer. Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a frequent functional disorder that might follow restorative proctectomy. Data regarding bowel function after Ta-TME are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for the development of LARS following Ta-TME. A prospectively maintained database of all patients who underwent Ta-TME for rectal cancer at our institution was reviewed. All patients who were operated on from January 2018 to December 2021 were evaluated. The LARS score questionnaire was used via telephone interviews. Incidence, severity and risk factors for LARS were evaluated. Eighty-five patients underwent Ta-TME for rectal cancer between January 2018 and December 2021. Thirty-five patients were excluded due to ostomy status, death, local disease recurrence, ileal pouch or lack of compliance. Fifty patients were included in the analysis. LARS was diagnosed in 76% of patients. Anastomosis distance from dentate line was identified as a risk factor for LARS via multivariate analysis (p = 0.042). Neo-adjuvant therapy, hand sewn anastomosis and anastomotic leak did not increase the risk of LARS. LARS is a frequent condition following ta-TME, as it is used for other approaches to low anterior resection. Anastomosis distance from dentate line is an independent risk factor for LARS. In this study neo-adjuvant therapy, hand sewn anastomosis and anastomotic leak did not increase the risk of LARS. Further studies with longer follow-up times are required to better understand the functional outcomes following Ta-TME.