Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Jul 4:16:380.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2428-5.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

Bin Ma  1 , Peng Gao  1 , Yongxi Song  1 , Cong Zhang  1 , Changwang Zhang  1 , Longyi Wang  1 , Hongpeng Liu  1 , Zhenning Wang  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

Bin Ma et al. BMC Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is an emerging surgical technique for rectal cancer. However, the oncological and perioperative outcomes are controversial when compared with conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME).

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database. All original studies published in English that compared taTME with laTME were included for critical appraisal and meta-analysis. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results: A total of seven studies including 573 patients (taTME group = 270; laTME group = 303) were included in our meta-analysis. Concerning the oncological outcomes, no differences were observed in harvested lymph nodes, distal resection margin (DRM) and positive DRM between the two groups. However, the taTME group showed a higher rate of achievement of complete grading of mesorectal quality (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.02-3.01, P = 0.04), a longer circumferential resection margin (CRM) and less involvement of positive CRM (CRM: WMD = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.60-1.31, P <0.01; positive CRM: OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.17-0.86, P = 0.02). Concerning the perioperative outcomes, the results for hospital stay, intraoperative complications and readmission were comparable between the two groups. However, the taTME group showed shorter operation times (WMD = -23.45, 95% CI = -37.43 to -9.46, P <0.01), a lower rate of conversion (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.11-0.81, P = 0.02) and a higher rate of mobilization of the splenic flexure (OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 0.99-5.54, P = 0.05). Although the incidence of anastomotic leakage, ileus and urinary morbidity showed no difference between the groups, a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.45-0.95, P = 0.03) was observed in the taTME group.

Conclusions: In comparison with laTME, taTME seems to achieve comparable technical success with acceptable oncologic and perioperative outcomes. However, multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of taTME.

Keywords: Laparoscopic TME; Rectal cancer; Short-term outcomes; Transanl TME.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart showing the selection process for the included studies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot based on oncological outcomes (a) Mactosocopic quality of mesoretum (b) Harvested lymph nodes (c) Circumferential resection margin (d) Distal resection margin (e) Positive circumferential resection margin (f) Positive distal resection margin
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot based on perioperative outcomes (a) Operative time (b) Conversion (c) Hospital stay (d) Mobilization of splenic flexure (e) Intraoperative complications
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot based on perioperative outcomes (a) Postoperative complications (b) Anastomotic leakage (c) Ileus (d) Urinary morbidity (e) Readmission
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5–29. doi: 10.3322/caac.21254. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery--the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg. 1982;69(10):613–6. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800691019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MH, de Lange-de Klerk ES, et al. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1324–32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414882. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, Kim S, Kang SB, Lim SB, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(7):767–74. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70205-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, Nam BH, Choi HS, Kim DW, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(7):637–45. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70131-5. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources