Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) versus laparoscopic TME for MRI-defined low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of oncological outcomes.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Humans
Laparoscopy
/ methods
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Margins of Excision
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
/ methods
Operative Time
Postoperative Complications
/ surgery
Proctectomy
/ methods
Propensity Score
Rectal Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Rectum
/ pathology
Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
/ methods
CRM
Conversion
Laparoscopic TME
MRI
Minimal Invasive Surgery
Rectal cancer
Transanal TME
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2019
08 2019
Historique:
received:
18
03
2018
accepted:
11
10
2018
pubmed:
24
10
2018
medline:
28
4
2020
entrez:
24
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While a shift to minimally invasive techniques in rectal cancer surgery has occurred, non-inferiority of laparoscopy in terms of oncological outcomes has not been definitely demonstrated. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been pioneered to potentially overcome difficulties experienced when operating with a pure abdominal approach deep down in the pelvis. This study aimed to compare short-term oncological results of TaTME versus laparoscopic TME (lapTME), based on a strict anatomical definition for low rectal cancer on MRI. From June 2013, all consecutive TaTME cases were included and compared to lapTME in a single institution. Propensity score-matching was performed for nine relevant factors. Primary outcome was resection margin involvement (R1), secondary outcomes included intra- and post-operative outcomes. After matching, forty-one patients were included in each group; no significant differences were observed in patient and tumor characteristics. The resection margin was involved in 5 cases (12.2%) in the laparoscopic group, versus 2 (4.9%) TaTME cases (P = 0.432). The TME specimen quality was complete in 84.0% of the laparoscopic cases and in 92.7% of the TaTME cases (P = 0.266). Median distance to the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was 5 mm in lapTME and 10 mm in TaTME (P = 0.065). Significantly more conversions took place in the laparoscopic group, 9 (22.0%) compared to none in the TaTME group (P < 0.001). Other clinical outcomes did not show any significant differences between the two groups. This is the first study to compare results of TaTME with lapTME in a highly selected patient group with MRI-defined low rectal tumors. A significant decrease in R1 rate could not be demonstrated, although conversion rate was significantly lower in this TaTME cohort.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
While a shift to minimally invasive techniques in rectal cancer surgery has occurred, non-inferiority of laparoscopy in terms of oncological outcomes has not been definitely demonstrated. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been pioneered to potentially overcome difficulties experienced when operating with a pure abdominal approach deep down in the pelvis. This study aimed to compare short-term oncological results of TaTME versus laparoscopic TME (lapTME), based on a strict anatomical definition for low rectal cancer on MRI.
METHODS
From June 2013, all consecutive TaTME cases were included and compared to lapTME in a single institution. Propensity score-matching was performed for nine relevant factors. Primary outcome was resection margin involvement (R1), secondary outcomes included intra- and post-operative outcomes.
RESULTS
After matching, forty-one patients were included in each group; no significant differences were observed in patient and tumor characteristics. The resection margin was involved in 5 cases (12.2%) in the laparoscopic group, versus 2 (4.9%) TaTME cases (P = 0.432). The TME specimen quality was complete in 84.0% of the laparoscopic cases and in 92.7% of the TaTME cases (P = 0.266). Median distance to the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was 5 mm in lapTME and 10 mm in TaTME (P = 0.065). Significantly more conversions took place in the laparoscopic group, 9 (22.0%) compared to none in the TaTME group (P < 0.001). Other clinical outcomes did not show any significant differences between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
This is the first study to compare results of TaTME with lapTME in a highly selected patient group with MRI-defined low rectal tumors. A significant decrease in R1 rate could not be demonstrated, although conversion rate was significantly lower in this TaTME cohort.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30350103
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6530-4
pii: 10.1007/s00464-018-6530-4
pmc: PMC6647375
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2459-2467Références
Ann Surg. 2010 May;251(5):807-18
pubmed: 20395841
Surg Endosc. 2014 Dec;28(12):3494-9
pubmed: 24972923
Br J Surg. 2004 Aug;91(8):1040-5
pubmed: 15286968
Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Jul;20(7):467-73
pubmed: 27178183
Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Aug;20(8):537-44
pubmed: 26993638
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jan 10;26(2):303-12
pubmed: 18182672
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009 Dec;35(12):1273-9
pubmed: 19615848
Ann Surg. 2017 Jul;266(1):111-117
pubmed: 27735827
Colorectal Dis. 2006 Sep;8 Suppl 3:30-2
pubmed: 16813590
JAMA. 2015 Oct 6;314(13):1356-63
pubmed: 26441180
Ann Surg. 2013 Apr;257(4):665-71
pubmed: 23333881
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Dec;42(12):1841-1850
pubmed: 27697315
Lancet. 2005 May 14-20;365(9472):1718-26
pubmed: 15894098
Surg Endosc. 2016 Aug;30(8):3210-5
pubmed: 26537907
Colorectal Dis. 2014 Mar;16(3):173-8
pubmed: 24267315
Arch Surg. 1998 Aug;133(8):894-9
pubmed: 9711965
Ann Surg. 2017 Nov;266(5):870-877
pubmed: 28746154
Lancet. 2009 Mar 7;373(9666):821-8
pubmed: 19269520
Colorectal Dis. 2010 Jan;12(1):37-43
pubmed: 19175624
Ann Surg. 2016 Apr;263(4):751-60
pubmed: 25822672
Ann Surg. 2019 Apr;269(4):700-711
pubmed: 29315090
Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Jul;61(7):809-816
pubmed: 29771810
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018 Apr;28(4):365-369
pubmed: 29190178
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Apr;23(4):1169-76
pubmed: 26597369
Lancet. 1986 Nov 1;2(8514):996-9
pubmed: 2430152
Dis Colon Rectum. 2001 Mar;44(3):315-21
pubmed: 11289275
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Mar;14(3):210-8
pubmed: 23395398
Br J Surg. 2007 Dec;94(12):1555-61
pubmed: 17668915
Ann Surg. 2003 Mar;237(3):335-42
pubmed: 12616116
Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Dec;20(12):811-824
pubmed: 27853973
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2015 Dec;400(8):945-59
pubmed: 26497544
JAMA. 2015 Oct 6;314(13):1346-55
pubmed: 26441179
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Jan;18(1):51-8
pubmed: 26603786
JAMA. 2017 Oct 24;318(16):1569-1580
pubmed: 29067426
Ann Surg. 2013 Jan;257(1):108-13
pubmed: 22968068
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec 20;23(36):9257-64
pubmed: 16361623
Ann Surg. 2015 Feb;261(2):221-7
pubmed: 25185463
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Dec;18(12):1154-1161
pubmed: 27218423
Surg Endosc. 2008 Dec;22(12):2625-30
pubmed: 18297346