Comparison of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) versus laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer: A case matched study

BackgroundTransanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been developed to improve the quality of laparoscopic TME for patients with rectal cancer. Recently, international concern on TaTME was raised by a national cohort study showing an increased rate of local recurrences. This study aimed to compare clinicopathological and mid-term oncological outcomes of TaTME versus laparoscopic TME (LaTME) for mid and low rectal cancer of a high volume center.MethodsFrom August 2014 to October 2019, patients with mid or low rectal cancer who received TaTME procedure were identified. The cases were matched with patients treated with LaTME. Data were retrospectively collected including operative details, postoperative morbidity, pathologic results, and oncologic outcomes. Primary endpoint was the local recurrence (LR) rate.ResultsPropensity score matching yielded 70 patients in each of the groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of postoperative complications, conversion rate to open surgery and circumferential resection margin. Local recurrence occurred in 2 patients (2.9%) in the transanal group, whereas 1 patient developed a local recurrence in the laparoscopic group (1.4%)(p = 0.559). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed a 2 year Local recurrence rate 1.5% VS 1.6%(p = 0.934), DFS 88.0% VS 87.7%, OS 94.0% vs 100% for transanal and laparoscopic group, respectively.ConclusionsIn a high volume center the transanal total mesorectal procedure is feasible, and appears to be safe alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Oncological outcomes were acceptable and no increased multi or unifocal local recurrence rate was found.     

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

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

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: Step by step description of the surgical technique for a two-teams approach

Interest in transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is growing worldwide due to the application of minimally invasive techniques to rectal cancer surgery while maintaining adequate oncologic outcomes.This article presents the standardised and refined technique after performing more than 300 operations at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona.     

Robotic low anterior resection versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer: A comparison of 115 cases

Background

Robotic low anterior resection (RLAR) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are novel surgical techniques for resection of rectal cancer. To our knowledge, no data exist on direct comparison of these procedures in terms of oncological or functional parameters.

Laparoscopy-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision for lower rectal cancer: A feasible and innovative technique

BACKGROUNDTransanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a new technique with many potential technical advantages. Laparoscopy-assisted taTME is a combination of transabdominal taTME and transluminal endoscopic surgery taTME. Laparoscopy-assisted taTME is a combination of techniques such as minimally invasive surgery, intersphincter-assisted resection, natural orifice extraction, ta minimally invasive surgery, and ultralow-level preservation of the anus.AIMTo verify the feasibility and safety of an innovative technique of taTME for treatment of cancer located in the lower rectum.METHODSFrom January 2016 to March 2018, we attempted to perform laparoscopy-assisted taTME surgery in 24 patients with lower rectal cancer.RESULTSThe new technique of laparoscopy-assisted taTME was successfully performed in all 24 patients. Mean operating time was 310.0 min and mean intraoperative blood loss was 69.1 mL. The mean time to passing of first flatus was 3.1 d, and mean postoperative hospital stay was 9.2 d. Two patients were given postoperative analgesics due to anal pain. Twenty-three patients were able to walk in first 2 d, and five patients had postoperative complications.CONCLUSIONLaparoscopy-assisted taTME is suitable for selected patients with lower rectal cancer, and this technique is worthy of further recommendation.     

直肠全系膜切除术后吻合口漏的危险因素分析和对策

目的探讨直肠全系膜切除(TME)术后吻合口漏的发生率、危险因素和治疗方法.方法607例距肛缘3～12 cm的中下段直肠癌行TME技术的直肠癌前切除术,对术后资料进行回顾性统计分析.结果2%的病例同时行横结肠造瘘术.术后吻合口漏发生率为5.8%,其中68.6%的病例通过单纯经双套管冲洗引流治愈,28.6%需行横结肠造瘘术,两组的治愈时间无差异.年龄、吻合技术和糖尿病与吻合口漏的发生密切相关(P＜0.05或0.01),而性别、肿瘤距肛缘距离、预防性造瘘和术前放疗与吻合口漏的发生无关.结论TME手术常规附加近端肠造瘘并无必要,对少数高危病例可能有价值.单纯经引流管冲洗可治愈大部分吻合口漏,少数病例需行剖腹探查肠造瘘术.     

直肠系膜全切除术的合理实施

目的 从直肠癌术后局部复发形式探讨直肠系膜全切除(TME)的合理实施及临床意义。方法 分析207例局部复发直肠癌患者的复发形式、治疗情况及治疗效果。结果 吻合口复发71例,直肠系膜复发65例,会阴部复发50例,淋巴结复发59例,多部位复发89例,其他部位少见。第1次行前切除术(AR)的8l例患者中,改行腹会阴联合切除术(APR)者58例;第1次行APR者102例,改行会阴部肿块切除者38例;行全盆及后盆器官切除者15例,补充行淋巴结清除者18例。手术切除率为66．2％(137／207),其中根治性切除率为46．0％(63／137)。172例有完整随访资料的患者中,病灶切除者的5年生存率为23．4％(32／137)．根治切除者的5年生存率为34．9％(22／63)。结论 从局部复发形式来看,TME是中低位直肠癌手术必须遵循的原则,复发患者只要全身条件允许,应再行手术治疗。     

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents and anastomotic leak rates across colorectal cancer operations and anastomotic sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis of anastomosis specific leak rate and confounding factors

BackgroundSurgical intervention presents a fundamental therapeutic choice in the management of colorectal malignancies. Complications, the most serious one being anastomotic leak (AL), still have detrimental effects upon patients’ morbidity and mortality. We aimed to assess whether NSAIDs, and their sub-categories, increase AL in colonic anastomoses and to identify whether this affects specific anastomotic sites.Materials and methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, Science Direct, Google Scholar was conducted between January 1, 1999 till the October 30, 2020. Cohort studies and randomized control trials examining AL events in NSAID-exposed, colorectal cancer patients were included. NSAIDs were grouped according to the 2019 NICE guidelines in non-specific (NS-NSAIDs) and specific COX-2 inhibitors. The primary outcome was AL events in NSAID-exposed patients undergoing operations with either ileocolic, colocolic or colorectal anastomoses. Secondary outcomes included NSAID category-specific AL events and demographic confounding factors increasing AL risk in this patient population.ResultsFifteen studies involving 25,395 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Of all anastomoses, colocolic anastomoses were found to be statistically more prone to AL events in the NS-NSAID-exposed population [OR 3.24 (95% CI 0.98–10.72), p = 0.054]. Male gender was an independent confounder increasing AL rate regardless of NSAID exposure.ConclusionThe association between NSAID exposure and AL in oncology patients remains undetermined. Whilst in present work, colocolic anastomoses appear to be more sensitive to AL events, the observed association may be anastomotic site and NSAID-category dependent.     

A preoperative prediction model for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection based on 13.175 patients

IntroductionThis study aims to develop a robust preoperative prediction model for anastomotic leakage (AL) after surgical resection for rectal cancer, based on established risk factors and with the power of a large prospective nation-wide population-based study cohort.Materials and methodsA development cohort was formed by using the DCRA (Dutch ColoRectal Audit), a mandatory population-based repository of all patients who undergo colorectal cancer resection in the Netherlands. Patients aged 18 years or older were included who underwent surgical resection for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis (with or without deviating ileostomy) between 2011 and 2019. Anastomotic leakage was defined as clinically relevant leakage requiring reintervention. Multivariable logistic regression was used to build a prediction model and cross-validation was used to validate the model.ResultsA total of 13.175 patients were included for analysis. AL was diagnosed in 1319 patients (10%). A deviating stoma was constructed in 6853 patients (52%). The following variables were identified as significant risk factors and included in the prediction model: gender, age, BMI, ASA classification, neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, cT stage, distance of the tumor from anal verge, and deviating ileostomy. The model had a concordance-index of 0.664, which remained 0.658 after cross-validation. In addition, a nomogram was developed.ConclusionThe present study generated a discriminative prediction model based on preoperatively available variables. The proposed score can be used for patient counselling and risk-stratification before undergoing rectal resection for cancer.     

腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术治疗中低位直肠癌

目的 探讨腹腔镜伞直肠系膜切除(TME)手术治疗中低位直肠癌的效果.方法 2004年11月至2007年6月间在天津市人民医院行腹腔镜TME手术者83例,行开腹手术者85例,分别对两组患者的手术标本切缘、检出淋巴结数目以及手术并发症的发生率进行比较.结果 腹腔镜TME手术组患者手术切缘与肿瘤之间的距离为(3.21±1.25)cm,明显长于开腹手术组[(1.15±1.11)cm,P=0.001].腹腔镜TME手术组患者的淋巴结检出数为(12.53±1.88)枚,明显多于开腹手术组[(10.85±1.81)枚,P=0.01].腹腔镜TME手术组和开腹手术组患者并发症的发生率分别为12.0%和23.5%,差异有统计学意义(P=0.026).腹腔镜TME手术组患者术后进食的时间和使用止痛剂的时间分别为(2.43±1.06)d和(2.53±1.01)d,开腹手术组分别为(3.67±1.13)d和(4.55±1.78)d,腹腔镜TME手术组患者术后进食时间和使用止痛剂的时间均明显短于开腹手术组(P=0.005和P=0.008).结论 腹腔镜TME手术治疗中低位直肠癌是一种较为安全的术式,治疗效果与开腹手术相同,而且患者并发症的发生率和术后恢复情况均优于开腹手术.     

直肠癌全系膜切除术后吻合口瘘原因分析及防治措施

目的：分析直肠癌全直肠系膜切除术后发生吻合口瘘的原因及防治措施.方法：回顾性分析自2003年1月至2007年12月在我院行全直肠系膜切除保肛手术的214例中低位直肠癌患者的临床资料.结果：214例患者术后共发生吻合口瘘16例（7.5％）.发生时间为术后4-15d,平均（6.8±1.4）d.其中性别、肿瘤Dukes分期、病理类型及有无结肠储袋等对术后吻合口瘘的发生率没有显著影响,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.而年龄、术前有无贫血及低蛋白血症、糖尿病史、有无合并肠梗阻、手术方式、吻合器应用、吻合器吻合后手工缝合减张及术后直肠留置肛管引流减压对术后吻合口瘘的发生率均有明显影响（P＜0.05）.4例严重吻合口瘘的患者并发弥漫性腹膜炎行横结肠造瘘术,术后4个月成功闭瘘.12例较轻的吻合口瘘患者采用单纯完全静脉营养、抗生素治疗、经引流管局部冲洗等措施全部治愈,愈合时间为14d至3个月,平均（28.7±2.3）d.术后无死亡患者.结论：高龄、贫血、低蛋白血症、合并糖尿病及肠梗阻、低位吻合口等是术后发生吻合口瘘的高危因素.吻合器吻合后手工缝合加固减张,术后直肠内留置肛管减压引流可显著减少吻合口瘘的发生.积极合理的采取非手术或手术措施治疗吻合口瘘是促进吻合口愈合的关键.     

低位/超低位直肠癌行腹腔镜下经肛拖出式全直肠系膜切除联合应用双吻合器的临床意义

  目的  探讨低位/超低位直肠癌患者接受腹腔镜下经肛门拖出全直肠系膜切除结合双吻合器手术的临床意义。  方法  选择于2010年1月至2012年11月间就诊于吉林大学第二医院普通外科疾病诊疗中心的46例低位/超低位直肠癌患者, 施行腹腔镜经肛门拖出全直肠系膜切除结合应用双吻合器手术。回顾性分析手术成功率、术后并发症及远期治疗效果。  结果  46例手术均获成功, 无中转开腹, 手术时间平均167 min, 出血量平均42 mL。术后切缘病理检查均未见癌细胞, 无手术死亡病例, 无吻合口瘘及输尿管损伤等严重并发症, 平均随访12.6个月, 无局部或吻合口复发、戳卡种植转移。  结论  施行低位/超低位直肠癌腹腔镜辅助下经肛门拖出全直肠系膜切除结合应用双吻合器具有安全可行的优点, 并且能够保证足够的肿瘤远端切缘。      

Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the journey towards a new technique and its current status

Introduction: The surgical approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer has undergone a substantial evolution with the adoption of more minimally invasive procedures. Transanal TME (taTME) is the latest advanced technique pioneered to tackle difficult pelvic dissections.

Areas covered: The evolution of TME surgery from open to laparoscopic, robotic and transanal techniques was explored in this review. The outcomes to date on the latest approach, taTME, are reviewed and the future direction of rectal cancer surgery proposed. A literature search was performed using Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane databases for articles published between January 2005 to May 2016 using the keywords ‘transanal’, ‘TME’, ‘laparoscopy’, ‘robotics’, ‘minimally invasive’, ‘outcomes’ and ‘training’.

Expert commentary: Surgical experience in taTME is growing and randomised controlled trials have been planned and initiated worldwide. However, the learning curve for this procedure remains to be established and a structured training programme is necessary to ensure safe introduction and dissemination of the technique in the clinical setting. Further innovation including stereotactic navigation and more specialised transanal equipment are currently being explored and are likely to enhance the technique further.     

Robotic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Comparative study of short and long-term outcomes

Background

Despite the several series in which the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery were investigated, data concerning the long-term outcomes are still scarce.

Methods

The prospectively collected records of 65 consecutive patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) were compared with those of 109 consecutive patients treated with open surgery (OTME). Patient characteristics, pathological findings, local and systemic recurrence rates and 5-year survival rates were compared.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications, reoperation and 30-day mortality. There were significant differences comparing groups: number of lymph nodes harvested (RTME: 20.1 vs. OTME: 14.1, P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (RTME: 0 vs. OTME: 150 ml, P = 0.003), operation time (RTME: 299.0 vs. OTME: 207.5 min, P < 0.001) and length of postoperative stay (RTME: 6 vs. OTME: 9 days, P < 0.001). The rate of circumferential resection margin involvement and distal resection margin were not statistically different between groups. There were no statistically significant differences at the 5-year follow-up: overall survival, disease-free survival and cancer-specific survival. The cumulative local recurrence rate was statistically lower in the robotic group (RTME: 3.4% vs. OTME: 16.1%, P = 0.024).

Conclusion

RTME showed a significant reduction in local recurrence rate and a higher, although not statistically significant, long-term cancer-specific survival with respect to OTME. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm or deny significantly better local control rates with robotic surgery.     

直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫和全直肠系膜切除

目前全直肠系膜切除（TME）原则已经是直肠癌手术的基本原则之一。很多学者把TME作为金标准,但不可将TME和侧方淋巴结清扫混为一谈。不可以因为TME而废除淋巴结清扫,也不可以因行淋巴结清扫而不行TME,只有二者同时进行才可达到根治肿瘤的目的。     

241例局部晚期中低位直肠癌术前同步放化疗联合TME根治术长期疗效分析

目的 回顾性分析 241例局部晚期中低位直肠癌行术前同步放化疗联合TME根治性手术的长期疗效以及影响预后因素。方法 2006—2014年中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤国家癌症中心连续收治经盆腔MRI或腹盆CT确诊的局部晚期中低位直肠腺癌患者 241例进行分析,该组患者术前盆腔放疗剂量 42.0~50.4 Gy (中位数50 Gy),同步化疗采用卡培他滨 ±奥沙利铂,于同步放化疗后 4~15周(中位数7周)接受TME原则的根治性手术(R0切除),术后均建议行辅助化疗,但需考虑患者恢复情况及意愿。Kaplan-Meier法计算DFS、LRR、DM及OS并Logrank法检验,Cox模型多因素分析。结果 全组患者中位随访42个月,3年LRR、DFS、OS和DM分别为3.8%、76.2%、85.9%和20.6%。亚组分析发现ypT0-2、ypN阴性、pCR、TRG4级患者可以获得更高的DFS (ypT0-2∶ypT3-4:86.0%∶69.3%,P=0.002;ypN阴性∶ypN阳性:88.1%∶56.9%,P=0.000;pCR∶非pCR:100%∶72.4%,P=0.001;TRG4级∶TRG2-3级∶TGR0-1级:94.9%∶73.6%∶66.3%,P=0.011),多因素分析结果显示术后ypN状态是影响DFS的因素(P=0.000)。结论 局部晚期中低位直肠癌行术前同步放化疗联合根治性手术局部区域控制较理想,远处转移是治疗失败的主要原因,放化疗后ypN状态是影响DFS的独立预后因素。     

Initial surgical experience in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for middle and lower third rectal cancer: short-term results

Introduction  Total mesorectal excision (TME) of the rectum has been advocated as the gold standard surgical treatment of middle and lower third rectal cancer. Laparoscopy has gained acceptance among surgeons in the treatment of colon malignancies, while scepticism exists about laparoscopic TME in terms of safety and its oncological adequacy. Objective  To evaluate the impact of laparoscopic TME on surgical and oncological outcome in a group of consecutive unselected patients. Methods  One hundred and thirty-two patients with middle or inferior rectal cancer were admitted to our unit and underwent TME from December 1998 to February 2008. Eighty-nine patients were approached with laparoscopy. Patients staged cT3/4 cTxN+ or uTxN+ were submitted to neoadjuvant treatment. Postoperative complications and oncological outcomes were registered. Results  In the laparoscopic group 80 anterior resections (including 4 intersphincteric resections and manual colo-anal anastomosis) and 9 abdominal-perineal resections were performed. 33.3% of patients were enrolled in “long-course” neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (partial and complete response rates 88.2% and 11.8%, respectively). Protective lateral ileostomy was performed in 72% of patients. Mean operative time was 254.3±38.3 min and mean blood loss was 215±180 ml. Conversion rate was 12.7%. Morbidity rate was 39.3% without mortality. The rate of anastomotic leaks was 13.48%, reoperation rate 13.48%, recovery rate 3.1±1.4 days and hospital stay 10.4±4.6 days. Concerning adequacy of oncologic resection, mean distance of the tumour from the anal verge was 4.3±2.2 cm. Nodal sampling of 12.4±4.8 were obtained. Six patients (6/89, 6.74%) had a R1 margin: 3 distal and 3 circumferential. Median follow-up was 29 months and local recurrence rate was 5.79%. Four-year cumulative overall survival was 78% and disease-free survival was 63% (Kaplan-Meier method). Conclusions  Laparoscopic approach for rectal tumour is a technically demanding procedure, but it is oncologically safe.     

Local excision for early rectal cancer: transanal endoscopic microsurgery and beyond

The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic control while minimizing the long-term impact of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care treatment for most stage I and II rectal cancers is radical surgery alone, specifically total mesorectal excision (TME). For early rectal cancers, this procedure is usually curative but can have a substantial impact on quality of life, including the possibility of permanent colostomy and the potential for short and long-term bowel, bladder, and sexual dysfunction. Given the morbidity associated with radical surgery, alternative approaches to management of early rectal cancer have been explored, including local excision (LE) via transanal excision (TAE) or transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). Compared to the gold standard of radical surgery, local procedures for strictly selected early rectal cancers should lead to identical oncological results and even better outcomes regarding morbidity, mortality, and quality of life.     

A systematic review of cancer related patient outcomes after anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer in the total mesorectal excision era

Purpose

It is a widely held view that anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer is an oncologically superior operation to abdominoperineal excision (APE). However, some centres have demonstrated better outcomes with APE. We conducted a systematic review of high-quality studies within the total mesorectal excision (TME) era comparing outcomes of AR and APE.

Methods

A literature search was performed to identify studies within the TME era comparing AR and APE with regard to the following: circumferential resection margin (CRM) status, tumour perforation rates, specimen quality, local recurrence, overall survival (OS; 3 or 5 year), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Additional data regarding patient demographics and tumour characteristics was collected.

Results

Twenty four studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria with Newcastle–Ottawa scores of six or greater. Where a significant difference was found, all studies reported lower and more advanced tumours for APE and 4/5 studies observed more frequent use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in APE patients. Tumour perforation rates and CRM involvement where reported, were significantly greater for APE. 8 out of 10 studies showing significant differences in local recurrence reported higher rates for APE but no differences were observed with distant recurrence. Where differences were noted, AR was reported to have increased DFS, CSS and OS compared to APE.

Conclusions

Patients treated with AR have lower rates of tumour perforation and CRM involvement and tend to have better outcomes with regard to disease recurrence and survival. However, tumours treated by APE are lower and more locally advanced.