Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Treatment of Carcinoma in the Middle or Lower Third Rectum: the Technical Feasibility of the Procedure, Pathological Results, and Clinical Outcome

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We are trying to illustrate operative, short-term, and pathological outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) as a surgical procedure for patients who are suffering cancer in the lower or middle rectum. This study included 25 consecutive patients who underwent TaTME for the mid and low cancer rectum. The primary outcome measures included frequency of postoperative (PO) bleeding, leakage, ileus, days to regain bowel function, days for Foley’s removal, and erectile function. The secondary outcome measures included operation time, status of resection margins, number, the quality of TME, and duration PO hospital stay. No recorded intraoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was 6.9 ± 2.6 days. The mean duration need for urinary catheter removal and flatus passage were 2.4 ± 2.1 and 1.5 + 0.9 days, respectively. The mean IPSS was returned to normal 12 months after surgery. The mean distal margin distance was 1.9 ± 1.1. Circumferential margin distance was > 1 mm in 23 (92%) patients. The mesorectum was complete in 22 (88%) patients. The survival rate was 88% over 3 years. TaTME could be considered as a safe, feasible, and effective surgical modality for patients who had mid and lower rectal tumors with an excellent pathological outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shanna A, Harvey J, Charles S, Leona A, Sree H, Nikhil H, Michael H (2015) Anorectal cancer: critical anatomic and staging distinctions that affect use of radiation. Ther Radio 35(7):2090–2107

    Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel R, Miller K, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 66:7–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Heald R, Husband E, Ryall R (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69(10):613–616

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Heald RJ (1988) The “holy plane” of rectal surgery. J R Soc Med 81:503–508

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Joseph M, Pierre A, Matthew R (2017) Recent advances in the management of rectal cancer: no surgery, minimal surgery or minimally invasive surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 9(6):139–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jayne D, Thorpe H, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown J, Guillou P (2010) Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 97:1638–1645

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Jayne D, Brown J, Walker J, Quirke P, Guillou P (2005) Bladder and sexual function following resection for rectal cancer in a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open technique. Br J Surg 92:1124–1132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lanfranco A, Castellanos A, Desai J, Meyers W (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Daniel L, Freddy P, Steffen F, Anne J, Christine S, Constant J, Elizabeth V (2010) Factors predicting the quality of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 252(6)

  10. Bjorn M, Perdawood S (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision: a systematic review. Dan Med J 62:A5105

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Autschbach F (2005) The pathological assessment of total mesorectal excision: what are the relevant resection margins? Inst Path Heid Univ Im Neu Feld 220/221:69120

    Google Scholar 

  12. Harmeet K, Haesun C, Nancy Y, Gaiane M, Corey T, Ping H et al (2012) MR imaging for preoperative evaluation of primary rectal cancer: practical considerations. RadiogGraph 32(2)

  13. Hacking C, Yang N (2018) Rectal cancer (staging). Radiopaedia

  14. Quirke P, Morris E (2007) Reporting colorectal cancer. Histopathology 50(1):103–112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Stevenson A, Solomon M, Lumley J, Hewett P, Clouston A, Gebski V, Davies L, Wilson K, Hague W, Simes J, ALaCaRT Investigators (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1356–1363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent D, Boller A, George V, Abbas M 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(13):1346–1355

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Serra A, Mora L, Alcantara M, Caro T, Gomez D, Navarro S (2014) Transanal endoscopic surgery in rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 20(33):11538–11545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Keller D, Haas E (2016) Transanal minimally invasive surgery: state of the art. J Gastrointest Surg 20(2):463–469

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wolthuis A, de Buck van A, D’Hoore A (2014) Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction-colectomy: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 20(36):12981–12992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Motson R, Lacy A (2015) The rationale for transanal total mesorectal excision. Dis Colon Rectum 58(9):911–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Denost Q, Adam J, Pontallier A, Celerier B, Laurent C, Rullier E (2015) Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 261(1):138–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bin M, Peng G, Yongxi S, Cong Z, Changwang Z, Longyi W, Hongpeng L, Zhenning W (2016) Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. BMC Cancer J 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2428-5

  23. Chen C, Lai Y, Jiang J, Chu C, Huang I, Chen W et al (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a matched case-control study. Ann Surg Oncol

  24. Fernandez H, Delgado S, Castells A, Tasende M, Momblan D, Díaz del Gobbo G et al (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer: short-term outcomes in comparison with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Sur 261(2):221–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Annibale D, Graziano P, Igor M, Vito P, Giorgio L, Paolo M, Giovanni A (2013) Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27:1887–1895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Simillis C, Hompes R, Penna M, Rasheed S, Tekkis P (2016) A systematic review of transanal total mesorectal excision. Is this the future of rectal cancer surgery? Color Dis 18(1):19–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Nagtegaal I, van de Velde C, van der Worp E, Kapiteijn E, Quirke P, van Krieken JH et al (2002) Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 20(7):1729–1734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wasserberg N, Gutman H (2008) Resection margins in modern rectal cancer surgery. J Surg Oncol 98:611–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P (2008) What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol 26(2):303–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, Egypt

    Ashraf M. Abdelkader, Ahmed M. Zidan & Mohamed T. Younis

  2. Banha University Hospital, Fareed Nada Street, Benha, 13518, Egypt

    Ashraf M. Abdelkader

  3. Pathology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, Egypt

    Shaimaa K. Dawa

Authors
  1. Ashraf M. Abdelkader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmed M. Zidan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohamed T. Younis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shaimaa K. Dawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Concept and design: Ashraf MA, Ahmed MZ, Mohamed T, Shaimaa KD

Manuscript preparation: Ashraf MA, Ahmed MZ, Mohamed T, Shaimaa KD

Data and statistical analysis: Ashraf MA, Ahmed MZ, Mohamed T, Shaimaa KD

Manuscript editing: Ashraf MA, Ahmed MZ, Mohamed T, Shaimaa KD

Literature search: Ashraf MA, Ahmed MZ, Mohamed T, Shaimaa KD

Manuscript review: Ashraf MA, Ahmed MZ, Mohamed T, Shaimaa KD

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashraf M. Abdelkader.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Patient Consent

Patient informed consents were obtained before the operation, as with all procedures.

Ethics Approval

This data collection was approved by the Ethical Committee of our hospital.

Additional information

Synopsis

In this study, we are trying to illustrate the operative, clinical, and pathological outcomes of TaTME as a surgical procedure for patients who are suffering cancer in the lower or middle rectum. We included 25 patients in our study over 3 years. Operations done laparoscopically, specimens examined histologically then patient followed postoperatively.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdelkader, A.M., Zidan, A.M., Younis, M.T. et al. Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Treatment of Carcinoma in the Middle or Lower Third Rectum: the Technical Feasibility of the Procedure, Pathological Results, and Clinical Outcome. Indian J Surg Oncol 9, 442–451 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-018-0808-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-018-0808-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation