» Articles » PMID: 29916871

A Multicenter Matched Comparison of Transanal and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid and Low-rectal Adenocarcinoma

Overview
Journal Ann Surg
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2018 Jun 20
PMID 29916871
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To compare the quality of surgical resection of transanal total mesorectal excision (TA-TME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME).

Background: Both TA-TME and R-TME have been advocated to improve the quality of surgery for rectal cancer below 10 cm from the anal verge, but there are little data comparing TA-TME and R-TME.

Methods: Data of patients undergoing TA-TME or R-TME for rectal cancer below 10 cm from the anal verge and a sphincter-saving procedure from 5 high-volume rectal cancer referral centers between 2011 and 2017 were obtained. Coarsened exact matching was used to create balanced cohorts of TA-TME and R-TME. The main outcome was the incidence of poor-quality surgical resection, defined as a composite measure including incomplete quality of TME, or positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) or distal resection margin (DRM).

Results: Out of a total of 730 patients (277 TA-TME, 453 R-TME), matched groups of 226 TA-TME and 370 R-TME patients were created. These groups were well-balanced. The mean tumor height from the anal verge was 5.6 cm (SD 2.5), and 70% received preoperative radiotherapy. The incidence of poor-quality resection was similar in both groups (TA-TME 6.9% vs R-TME 6.8%; P = 0.954). There were no differences in TME specimen quality (complete or near-complete TA-TME 99.1% vs R-TME 99.2%; P = 0.923) and CRM (5.6% vs 6.0%; P = 0.839). DRM involvement may be higher after TA-TME (1.8% vs 0.3%; P = 0.051).

Conclusions: High-quality TME for patients with rectal adenocarcinoma of the mid and low rectum can be equally achieved by transanal or robotic approaches in skilled hands, but attention should be paid to the distal margin.

Citing Articles

Predictive model of the surgical difficulty of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a multicenter, retrospective study.

Han M, Guo S, Ma S, Zhou Q, Zhang W, Wang J J Robot Surg. 2024; 19(1):19.

PMID: 39648255 PMC: 11625687. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02180-6.


Utility and challenges of ureteral visualization using a fluorescent ureteral catheter in high risk surgeries for colorectal cancer.

Ryu S, Imaizumi Y, Nakashima S, Kawakubo H, Kawai H, Kobayashi T Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(10):6184-6192.

PMID: 39266754 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11211-0.


Peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes of robotic versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mohamedahmed A, Zaman S, Wuheb A, Ismail A, Nnaji M, Alyamani A Tech Coloproctol. 2024; 28(1):75.

PMID: 38951249 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-024-02947-x.


Evaluating the safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment for rectal endometriosis: results from a French prospective multicentre study including 60 patients.

Dubernard G, Maissiat E, Legendre G, Dennis T, Capmas P, Warembourg S Hum Reprod. 2024; 39(8):1673-1683.

PMID: 38914481 PMC: 11291952. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deae127.


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

DeAngelis N, Marchegiani F, Martinez-Perez A, Biondi A, Pucciarelli S, Schena C BJS Open. 2024; 8(3).

PMID: 38805357 PMC: 11132137. DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrae044.