Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: International Registry Results of the First 720 Cases.
TL;DR: TaTME appears to be an oncologically safe and effective technique for distal mesorectal dissection with acceptable short-term patient outcomes and good specimen quality.
Abstract: Objective: This study aims to report short-term clinical and oncological outcomes from the international transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) registry for benign and malignant rectal pathology. Background: TaTME is the latest minimally invasive transanal technique pioneered to facilitate difficult pelvic dissections. Outcomes have been published from small cohorts, but larger series can further assess the safety and efficacy of taTME in the wider surgical population. Methods: Data were analyzed from 66 registered units in 23 countries. The primary endpoint was "good-quality TME surgery." Secondary endpoints were short-term adverse events. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of poor specimen outcome. Results: A total of 720 consecutively registered cases were analyzed comprising 634 patients with rectal cancer and 86 with benign pathology. Approximately, 67% were males with mean BMI 26.5 kg/m 2. Abdominal or perineal conversion was 6.3% and 2.8%, respectively. Intact TME specimens were achieved in 85%, with minor defects in 11% and major defects in 4%. R1 resection rate was 2.7%. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 0.5% and 32.6% respectively. Risk factors for poor specimen outcome (suboptimal TME specimen, perforation, and/or R1 resection) on multivariate analysis were positive CRM on staging MRI, low rectal tumor <2 cm from anorectal junction, and laparoscopic transabdominal posterior dissection to <4 cm from anal verge. Conclusions: TaTME appears to be an oncologically safe and effective technique for distal mesorectal dissection with acceptable short-term patient outcomes and good specimen quality. Ongoing structured training and the upcoming randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the technique further.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Large tumors in obese, diabetic male patients who smoke have the highest risk of anastomotic failure following Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision, and acknowledging such risk factors can guide appropriate consent and clinical decision-making that may reduce anastsomotic-related morbidity.
Abstract: Objective:To determine the incidence of anastomotic-related morbidity following Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) and identify independent risk factors for failure.Background:Anastomotic leak and its sequelae are dreaded complications following gastrointestinal surgery. TaTME is a recent t
256 citations
University of Oxford1, University of Bristol2, University of Exeter3, University of Aberdeen4, Maimonides Medical Center5, Radboud University Nijmegen6, St George's, University of London7, Macquarie University8, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust9, University of Minnesota10, Cornell University11
TL;DR: This article updates and extends the IDEAL Recommendations, identifies areas for future research, and discusses the ethical problems faced by investigators at each IDEAL stage, to widen the practical use of IDEAL.
Abstract: Objective:To update, clarify, and extend IDEAL concepts and recommendations.Background:New surgical procedures, devices, and other complex interventions need robust evaluation for safety, efficacy, and effectiveness. Unlike new medicines, there is no internationally agreed evaluation pathway for gen
234 citations
TL;DR: Whether preoperative factors can predict resectability of borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and which patients might benefit from adjuvant therapy is investigated.
Abstract: Objective:The aim of this study was to determine (1) whether preoperative factors can predict resectability of borderline resectable (BR) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, (2) which patients might benefit from adjuvant therapy, and (3) su
217 citations
TL;DR: A careful review of the existing literature on anastomotic leakage found several different definitions of AL which leads to believe that the lack of a consensual, standard definition can partly explain the considerable variations in reported rates of AL in clinical studies.
Abstract: Every colorectal surgeon during his or her career is faced with anastomotic leakage (AL); one of the most dreaded complications following any type of gastrointestinal anastomosis due to increased risk of morbidity, mortality, overall impact on functional and oncologic outcome and drainage on hospital resources. In order to understand and give an overview of the AL risk factors in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, we carried out a careful review of the existing literature on this topic and found several different definitions of AL which leads us to believe that the lack of a consensual, standard definition can partly explain the considerable variations in reported rates of AL in clinical studies. Colorectal leak rates have been found to vary depending on the anatomic location of the anastomosis with reported incidence rates ranging from 0 to 20%, while the laparoscopic approach to colorectal resections has not yet been associated with a significant reduction in AL incidence. As well, numerous risk factors, though identified, lack unanimous recognition amongst researchers. For example, the majority of papers describe the risk factors for left-sided anastomosis, the principal risk being male sex and lower anastomosis, while little data exists defining AL risk factors in a right colectomy. Also, gut microbioma is gaining an emerging role as potential risk factor for leakage.
201 citations
TL;DR: The aim of this study was to evaluate local recurrence after TaTME, and aims included postoperative mortality, anastomotic leak and stoma rates.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer has emerged as an alternative to the traditional abdominal approach. However, concerns have been raised about local recurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate local recurrence after TaTME. Secondary aims included postoperative mortality, anastomotic leak and stoma rates. METHODS Data on all patients who underwent TaTME were recorded and compared with those from national cohorts in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry (NCCR) and the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery (NoRGast). Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to compare local recurrence. RESULTS In Norway, 157 patients underwent TaTME for rectal cancer between October 2014 and October 2018. Three of seven hospitals abandoned TaTME after a total of five procedures. The local recurrence rate was 12 of 157 (7·6 per cent); eight local recurrences were multifocal or extensive. The estimated local recurrence rate at 2·4 years was 11·6 (95 per cent c.i. 6·6 to 19·9) per cent after TaTME compared with 2·4 (1·4 to 4·3) per cent in the NCCR (P < 0·001). The adjusted hazard ratio was 6·71 (95 per cent c.i. 2·94 to 15·32). Anastomotic leaks resulting in reoperation occurred in 8·4 per cent of patients in the TaTME cohort compared with 4·5 per cent in NoRGast (P = 0·047). Fifty-six patients (35·7 per cent) had a stoma at latest follow-up; 39 (24·8 per cent) were permanent. CONCLUSION Anastomotic leak rates after TaTME were higher than national rates; local recurrence rates and growth patterns were unfavourable.
165 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, transverse slicing was used to examine whole-mount sections of the entire operative specimen of rectal adnocarcinoma and showed that the spread to the lateral resection margin in 14 of 52 (27%) patients and 12 of these proceeded to local pelvic recurrence.
1,722 citations
TL;DR: Long-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer were similar in those undergoing abdominoperineal resection and AR, and support the continued use of laparoscopic surgery in these patients.
Abstract: Purpose The aim of the current study is to report the long-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with conventional open surgery within the context of the UK MRC CLASICC trial. Results from randomized trials have indicated that laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in the short term. Few data are available on rectal cancer, and long-term data on survival and recurrence are now required. Methods The United Kingdom Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (UK MRC CLASICC; clinical trials number ISRCTN 74883561) trial study comparing conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with cancer of the colon and rectum. The randomization ratio was 2:1 in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Long-term outcomes (3-year overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], local recurrence, and quality of life [QoL]) have now been determined on an intention-to-treat basis. Results Seven hundred ninety-f...
1,363 citations
TL;DR: In selected patients with rectal cancer treated by skilled surgeons, laparoscopic surgery resulted in similar safety, resection margins, and completeness of resection to that of open surgery, and recovery was improved after laparoscope surgery.
Abstract: Summary Background Laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to open surgery in patients with rectal cancer has not yet been shown to be oncologically safe. The aim in the COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR II) trial was to compare laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Methods A non-inferiority phase 3 trial was undertaken at 30 centres and hospitals in eight countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with rectal cancer within 15 cm from the anal verge without evidence of distant metastases were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio, stratified by centre, location of tumour, and preoperative radiotherapy. The study was not masked. Secondary (short-term) outcomes—including operative findings, complications, mortality, and results at pathological examination—are reported here. Analysis was by modified intention to treat, excluding those patients with post-randomisation exclusion criteria and for whom data were not available. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00297791. Findings The study was undertaken between Jan 20, 2004, and May 4, 2010. 1103 patients were randomly assigned to the laparoscopic (n=739) and open surgery groups (n=364), and 1044 were eligible for analyses (699 and 345, respectively). Patients in the laparoscopic surgery group lost less blood than did those in the open surgery group (median 200 mL [IQR 100–400] vs 400 mL [200–700], p vs 188 min [150–240]; p vs 3·0 days [2·0–4·0]; p vs 9·0 days [7·0–14·0]; p=0·036). Macroscopically, completeness of the resection was not different between groups (589 [88%] of 666 vs 303 [92%] of 331; p=0·250). Positive circumferential resection margin ( vs 3·0 cm [1·8–5·0], respectively; p=0·676). In the laparoscopic and open surgery groups, morbidity (278 [40%] of 697 vs 128 [37%] of 345, respectively; p=0·424) and mortality (eight [1%] of 699 vs six [2%] of 345, respectively; p=0·409) within 28 days after surgery were similar. Interpretation In selected patients with rectal cancer treated by skilled surgeons, laparoscopic surgery resulted in similar safety, resection margins, and completeness of resection to that of open surgery, and recovery was improved after laparoscopic surgery. Results for the primary endpoint—locoregional recurrence—are expected by the end of 2013. Funding Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe, Swedish Cancer Foundation, West Gothia Region, Sahlgrenska University Hospital.
1,298 citations
Baylor University Medical Center1, Mayo Clinic2, Northwestern University3, Indiana University4, Cleveland Clinic5, Boone Hospital Center6, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center7, Vanderbilt University8, University of Chicago9, Washington University in St. Louis10, Oregon Health & Science University11, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center12, University of Rochester13, Stanford University14
TL;DR: Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for pathologic outcomes.
Abstract: Importance Evidence about the efficacy of laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is incomplete, particularly for patients with more advanced-stage disease. Objective To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open resection, as determined by gross pathologic and histologic evaluation of the resected proctectomy specimen. Design, setting, and participants A multicenter, balanced, noninferiority, randomized trial enrolled patients between October 2008 and September 2013. The trial was conducted by credentialed surgeons from 35 institutions in the United States and Canada. A total of 486 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were randomized after completion of neoadjuvant therapy to laparoscopic or open resection. Interventions Standard laparoscopic and open approaches were performed by the credentialed surgeons. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcome assessing efficacy was a composite of circumferential radial margin greater than 1 mm, distal margin without tumor, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. A 6% noninferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation. Results Two hundred forty patients with laparoscopic resection and 222 with open resection were evaluable for analysis of the 486 enrolled. Successful resection occurred in 81.7% of laparoscopic resection cases (95% CI, 76.8%-86.6%) and 86.9% of open resection cases (95% CI, 82.5%-91.4%) and did not support noninferiority (difference, -5.3%; 1-sided 95% CI, -10.8% to ∞; P for noninferiority = .41). Patients underwent low anterior resection (76.7%) or abdominoperineal resection (23.3%). Conversion to open resection occurred in 11.3% of patients. Operative time was significantly longer for laparoscopic resection (mean, 266.2 vs 220.6 minutes; mean difference, 45.5 minutes; 95% CI, 27.7-63.4; P Conclusions and relevance Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for pathologic outcomes. Pending clinical oncologic outcomes, the findings do not support the use of laparoscopic resection in these patients. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00726622.
834 citations
TL;DR: Among patients with T1-T3 rectal tumors, noninferiority of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for successful resection was not established, and these findings do not provide sufficient evidence for the routine use of lapARoscopic surgery.
Abstract: Importance Laparoscopic procedures are generally thought to have better outcomes than open procedures. Because of anatomical constraints, laparoscopic rectal resection may not be better because of limitations in performing an adequate cancer resection. Objective To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open rectal cancer resection for adequacy of cancer clearance. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial (Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum; ALaCaRT) conducted between March 2010 and November 2014. Twenty-six accredited surgeons from 24 sites in Australia and New Zealand randomized 475 patients with T1-T3 rectal adenocarcinoma less than 15 cm from the anal verge. Interventions Open laparotomy and rectal resection (n = 237) or laparoscopic rectal resection (n = 238). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was a composite of oncological factors indicating an adequate surgical resection, with a noninferiority boundary of Δ = −8%. Successful resection was defined as meeting all the following criteria: (1) complete total mesorectal excision, (2) a clear circumferential margin (≥1 mm), and (3) a clear distal resection margin (≥1 mm). Pathologists used standardized reporting and were blinded to the method of surgery. Results A successful resection was achieved in 194 patients (82%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and 208 patients (89%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of −7.0% [95% CI, −12.4% to ∞]; P = .38 for noninferiority). The circumferential resection margin was clear in 222 patients (93%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and in 228 patients (97%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of −3.7% [95% CI, −7.6% to 0.1%]; P = .06), the distal margin was clear in 236 patients (99%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and in 234 patients (99%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of −0.4% [95% CI, −1.8% to 1.0%]; P = .67), and total mesorectal excision was complete in 206 patients (87%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and 216 patients (92%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of −5.4% [95% CI, −10.9% to 0.2%]; P = .06). The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 9%. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with T1-T3 rectal tumors, noninferiority of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for successful resection was not established. Although the overall quality of surgery was high, these findings do not provide sufficient evidence for the routine use of laparoscopic surgery. Longer follow-up of recurrence and survival is currently being acquired. Trial Registration anzctr.org Identifier:ACTRN12609000663257
826 citations