C Holmer1, S Benz2, S Fichtner-Feigl3, E C Jehle4, P Kienle5, S Post6, T Schiedeck7, J Weitz8, M E Kreis9. 1. Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Deutschland. 2. Klinikum Sindelfingen-Böblingen, Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Kinderchirurgie, Klinikverbund Südwest, Böblingen, Deutschland. 3. Klinik für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Department Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland. 4. Klinik für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, St. Elisabethen-Klinikum, Ravensburg, Deutschland. 5. Klinik für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Theresienkrankenhaus, Mannheim, Deutschland. 6. Chirurgische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Mannheim, Mannheim, Deutschland. 7. Klinik für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Klinikum Ludwigsburg, Ludwigsburg, Deutschland. 8. Klinik und Poliklinik für Viszeral‑, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus der TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland. 9. Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Deutschland. martin.kreis@charite.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the international standard for rectal cancer surgery. In addition to laparoscopic TME (lapTME), transanal TME (taTME) was developed in recent years to reduce the rate of incomplete TME, conversion to open surgery and postoperative functional impairment. Despite limited evidence, this technique is becoming increasingly more popular and is already routinely used by many hospitals for rectal cancer in varying tumor level locations. The aim of this review was to evaluate the taTME compared to anterior rectal resection with lapTME as the standard of care in rectal cancer surgery based on currently available evidence. METHOD: The databases PubMed and Medline were systematically searched for publications on transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). Relevant studies were selected and further research based on the reference lists was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies analyzing 3782 patients were identified. The taTME does not lead to a higher rate of complete TME-resected specimens compared to the standard procedure. So far, superiority could not be demonstrated for complication rates or for functional or oncological results. Serious complications secondary to dissection in incorrect planes were observed. The anastomotic level generally seems to be closer to the sphincter after taTME versus anterior lapTME. CONCLUSION: Considering current evidence, taTME failed to show superiority compared to conventional anterior lapTME. Although taTME has some potential advantages, it carries substantial risks. If performed outside of clinical trials, it should therefore only be used in carefully selected patients with a high possibility of conversion, following adequate patient informed consent and after intense and systematic training of the surgeon.
INTRODUCTION: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the international standard for rectal cancer surgery. In addition to laparoscopic TME (lapTME), transanal TME (taTME) was developed in recent years to reduce the rate of incomplete TME, conversion to open surgery and postoperative functional impairment. Despite limited evidence, this technique is becoming increasingly more popular and is already routinely used by many hospitals for rectal cancer in varying tumor level locations. The aim of this review was to evaluate the taTME compared to anterior rectal resection with lapTME as the standard of care in rectal cancer surgery based on currently available evidence. METHOD: The databases PubMed and Medline were systematically searched for publications on transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). Relevant studies were selected and further research based on the reference lists was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies analyzing 3782 patients were identified. The taTME does not lead to a higher rate of complete TME-resected specimens compared to the standard procedure. So far, superiority could not be demonstrated for complication rates or for functional or oncological results. Serious complications secondary to dissection in incorrect planes were observed. The anastomotic level generally seems to be closer to the sphincter after taTME versus anterior lapTME. CONCLUSION: Considering current evidence, taTME failed to show superiority compared to conventional anterior lapTME. Although taTME has some potential advantages, it carries substantial risks. If performed outside of clinical trials, it should therefore only be used in carefully selected patients with a high possibility of conversion, following adequate patient informed consent and after intense and systematic training of the surgeon.