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
. 2019 Sep;14(3):353-365.
doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2019.82798. Epub 2019 Feb 8.

Transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

Dezheng Lin  1   2 , Zhaoliang Yu  2   3 , Wenpei Chen  4 , Jiancong Hu  1   2 , Xuming Huang  1   2 , Zhen He  2   3 , Yi-Feng Zou  2   3 , Xiangan Yu  2   3 , Xuefeng Guo  1   2 , Xiao-Jian Wu  2   3
Affiliations

Transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

Dezheng Lin et al. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2019 Sep.

Abstract

Introduction: The benefit of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for mid and low rectal cancer is conflicting.

Aim: To assess and compare the short-term outcomes of TaTME with conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for middle and low rectal cancer.

Material and methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases for studies addressing TaTME versus conventional LaTME for rectal cancer between 2008 and December 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies which compared TaTME with LaTME were included.

Results: Twelve retrospective case-control studies were identified, including a total of 899 patients. We did not find significant differences in overall intraoperative complications, blood loss, conversion rate, operative time, overall postoperative complication, anastomotic leakage, ileus, or urinary morbidity. Also no significant differences in oncological outcomes including circumferential resection margin (CRM), positive CRM, distal margin distance (DRM), positive DRM, quality of mesorectum, number of harvested lymph nodes, temporary stoma or local recurrence were found. Although the TaTME group had better postoperative outcomes (readmission, reoperation, length of hospital stay) on average, the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions: Transanal total mesorectal excision offers a safe and feasible alternative to LaTME although the clinicopathological features were not superior to LaTME in this study. Currently, with the lack of evidence on benefits of TaTME, further evaluation of TaTME requires large randomized control trials to be conducted.

Keywords: laparoscopic total mesorectal excision; meta-analysis; rectal cancer; transanal total mesorectal excision.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of trial identification, screening, inclusion and exclusion
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plots describing estimated blood loss (A), conversion events (B), operative time (C) and intraoperative complications (D) between TaTME and LaTME
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots describing postoperative outcomes: overall postoperative complication (A), anastomotic leakage (B), ileus (C), urinary morbidity (D) between TaTME and LaTME
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plots describing postoperative outcomes: readmission (A), reoperation (B), length of hospital stay (C) between TaTME and LaTME
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plots describing oncological outcomes: CRM (A), positive CRM (B), DRM (C), positive DRM (D) between TaTME and LaTME
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plots describing oncological outcomes: quality of mesorectum (A), number of harvested lymph nodes (B) and temporary stoma (C) between TaTME and LaTME
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot describing oncological outcome of local recurrence
Figure 8
Figure 8
Funnel plot showing publication bias based on overall complication rate
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ries LA, Wingo PA, Miller DS, et al. The annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1997, with a special section on colorectal cancer. Cancer. 2000;88:2398–424. - PubMed
    1. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS. Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy) Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1991;1:144–50. - PubMed
    1. Kearney DE, Coffey JC. A Randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:194. - PubMed
    1. Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, 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;15:767–74. - PubMed
    1. Pedziwiatr M, Malczak P, Mizera M, et al. There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21:595–604. - PMC - PubMed