The role of transanal compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (taTME vs. lapTME) for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer in obese patients: outcomes of a multicenter propensity-matched analysis
- PMID: 37903996
- DOI: 10.1007/s13304-023-01676-4
The role of transanal compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (taTME vs. lapTME) for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer in obese patients: outcomes of a multicenter propensity-matched analysis
Erratum in
-
Correction to: The role of transanal compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (taTME vs. lapTME) for the treatment of mid‑low rectal cancer in obese patients: outcomes of a multicentre propensity‑matched analysis.Updates Surg. 2024 Jan;76(1):329. doi: 10.1007/s13304-023-01705-2. Updates Surg. 2024. PMID: 37993661 No abstract available.
Abstract
To compare the rate of sphincter-saving interventions between transanal and laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in this particular group of patients. A multicentre observational study was conducted using a prospective database, including patients diagnosed with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, who underwent minimally invasive elective surgery over a 5-year period. Exclusion criteria were (1) sphincter and/or puborectalis invasion; (2) multi-visceral resections; (3) palliative surgeries. The study population was divided into two groups according to the intervention: transanal or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. The primary outcome was the rate of sphincter-saving surgery. Secondary outcomes included conversion, postoperative complications, quality of the specimen, and survival. A total of 93 patients were included; 40 (43%) transanal total mesorectal excision were compared to 53 (57%) laparoscopic. In addition, 35 cases of transanal approach were case-matched with an equal number of laparoscopic approaches, based on gender, tumor's height, and neoadjuvant therapy. In both groups, 43% of the patients had low rectal cancer; however, the rate of sphincter-saving surgery was significantly higher in the transanal group (97% vs. 71%, p = 0.003). There were no conversions to open surgery in the transanal group, compared to 2 cases in the laparoscopic group (6%) (p = 0.246). The percentage of major complications was similar, including the rate of anastomotic leakage (10% transanal vs. 19% laparoscopic, p = 0.835). In our experience, higher percentages of sphincter-saving procedures and lower conversion rates are potential benefits of using the transanal approach in a complex surgical setting population of obese patients with mid-low rectal tumors when compared to laparoscopic.
Keywords: Laparoscopic surgery; Rectal cancer; TaTME; Total mesorectal excision; Transanal total mesorectal excision.
© 2023. Italian Society of Surgery (SIC).
References
-
- Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery–the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69:613–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800691019 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Haglind E, COLOR II Study Group (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 373:194. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1505367 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1356–1363. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.12009 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1346–1355. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.10529 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Aytac E, Lavery IC, Kalady MF, Kiran RP (2013) Impact of obesity on operation performed, complications, and long-term outcomes in terms of restoration of intestinal continuity for patients with mid and low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 56:689–697. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182880ffa - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
