Short- and long-term outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-to-low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

• Published in: Surgical endoscopy Vol. 33; no. 3; pp. 972 - 985
• Main Authors: Zhang, Xuan, Gao, Yi, Dai, XingLong, Zhang, HongTao, Shang, ZhongJun, Cai, XinYi, Shen, Tao, Cheng, XianShuo, Yu, Kun, Li, YunFeng
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.03.2019; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Blood Loss, Surgical; Colorectal cancer; Female; Gastroenterology; Gynecology; Hepatology; Humans; Laparoscopy; Laparoscopy - methods; Length of Stay; Lymph Nodes - pathology; Male; Margins of Excision; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Meta-analysis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; New Technology; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Proctology; Rectal Neoplasms - mortality; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery; Rectum - surgery; Surgery; Survival Analysis; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery - methods; Total mesorectal excision; Laparoscopy; Rectal cancer; Transanal; Meta-analysis
• ISSN: 0930-2794; 1432-2218
• DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6527-z

Background and objectives Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is positioned at the cutting edge of minimally invasive approach to mid- and low rectal cancer. This meta-analysis was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of TaTME versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) and to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and possible superiority of TaTME. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs) comparing TaTME with LTME. Inter-group differences were evaluated via standardized mean differences and relative risks (RRs). All outcomes were analyzed using fixed effects or random effects models according to the heterogeneity. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata/SE 12.0 software. Results Eleven studies (1 RCT and 10 NRCTs) with involving 757 patients were included. Among which, 361 patients underwent TaTME and 396 patients underwent LTME. Comparing the surgical and oncological quality of resection of TaTME with that of LTME, reports of TaTME indicated favorable outcomes considering mesorectal resection quality, circumferential resection margin involvement, intraoperative blood loss, conversions, and postoperative complications, while the differences between the two groups had no statistical significance in terms of distal resection margin, harvested lymph node, operation time, hospital stay, recurrence, 2-year overall survival (OS), and 2-year disease-free survival. Conclusion TaTME is a promising surgical technique and is fully a safe, efficacious, and diffusible alternative to LTME in managing mid- and distal rectal cancer. Larger scale, national, multicentric RCTs are warranted to further verify these results and the possible superiority of TaTME.