Transanal TATA/TME: a case-matched study of taTME versus laparoscopic TME surgery for rectal cancer
Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has always made more sense in the colorectal field where the target organ for entry houses the pathology. To address the question whether an adequate total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be performed from a transanal bottoms-up approach, we performed a case-matched study.
Starting in 2009, transanal TME (taTME) surgery was selectively used for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy and prospectively entered into a database. Between March 2012 and February 2014, 17 consecutive taTME rectal cancer patients were identified and case-matched to multiport laparoscopic TME (MP TME) based on age, body mass index, uT stage, radiation dose, level in the rectum, and procedure. Perioperative outcomes, morbidity, mortality, local recurrence, completeness of TME, and radial and distal margins were analyzed. Statistically significant differences were identified using Student’s t test.
There were 12 transanal abdominal transanal (TATA)/5 abdominoperineal resection procedures in each group. Data regarding overall/taTME/MP TME are as follows: % positive-circumferential margin: 2.9/0/5.9 % (p = 0.32). Distal margin: 0/0/0 %. Complete or near-complete TME: 97.1/100/94.1 % (p = 0.32). Incomplete TME 2.9/0/5.9 % (p = 0.32). Local recurrence: 2.9/5.9/0 % (p = 0.32). There were no perioperative mortalities. Morbidity in each group: 26.4/23.5/29.4 % (p = 0.79). There were no differences in perioperative or postoperative outcomes except days to clear liquids (1/2 days, p = 0.03) and largest incision length (1.3/2.6 cm, p = 0.05).
We demonstrated no differences in perioperative/postoperative outcomes or pathologic TME outcomes of transanal or bottoms-up TME compared to standard laparoscopic TME. TaTME is a promising progressive approach to NOTES and deserves additional evaluation.
KeywordsRectal cancer NOTES TATA TaTME TAMIS Laparoscopic surgery Sphincter-preserving surgery
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study was carried out to appropriate ethical standards.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this manuscript and any accompanying images.
- 16.Marks G, Bannon J, Marks J (1996) Transanal-abdominal Transanal radical proctosigmoidectomy with coloanal anastomosis for distal rectal cancer. In: Baker R, Fisher J, Nyhus L (eds) Mastery of surgery, 3rd edn. Little, Brown and Company Inc, Boston, pp 1524–1534Google Scholar
- 20.Marks JH (2009) Transanal proctectomy using TEM endoscope: initial experience. Unpublished raw dataGoogle Scholar
- 23.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2016) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: rectal cancer. V.1.2016Google Scholar
- 28.Marks G, Mohiuddin M, Masoni L et al (1992) High-dose preoperative radiation therapy as the key to extending sphincter preservation surgery for cancer of the distal rectum. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1:71–85Google Scholar
- 36.Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, van der Worp E, Kapiteijn E, Quirke P, van Krieken JH, Cooperative Clinical Investigators of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (2002) Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 20:1729–1734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar