Pathological outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Since 2010, comparative studies on transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) have been published and it remains unclear about the oncological benefit from transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME).
We have searched English databases to identify all taTME studies published between January 2010 and August 2017. Pathological outcomes included circumferential resection margin (CRM), positive CRM (< 1 M), length of distal resection margin (DRM), positive DRM, quality of mesorectum (complete mesorectum), harvested lymph node, and length of the specimen. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes.
We have included ten studies comprising of 762 patients. Compared with laparoscopic TME, taTME had a longer CRM (WMD, 0.833; 95% CI 0.366–1.299; P < 0.001), a lower positive rate of CRM (OR, 0.505; 95% CI 0.258–0.991; P = 0.047), and a longer DRM (WMD, 6.261; 95% CI 1.049–11.472; P = 0.019). There were no significant differences in other pathological outcomes. Both cumulative meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were unable to detect potential sources of the heterogeneity in DRM. There was no evidence of publication bias.
This meta-analysis revealed that taTME had more advantages on positive CRM, CRM, and DRM compared with laparoscopic TME. Compared with laparoscopic TME, more benefits of taTME on pathological outcomes remained undetected. The current findings are all based on observational studies, RCTs with adequate power are required.
KeywordsTransanal Laparoscopic Total mesorectal excision Meta-analysis
Thanks to Prof. Choon Seng Chong, National University Hospital of Singapore, for his contribution in proofreading in English and other comments.
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81572383).
Compliance with ethical standards
Hong-Peng Jiang, Yan-Sen Li, Bo Wang, Fan Liu, Chang Wang, Zhan-Long Shen, Ying-Jiang Ye, and Shan Wang have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 5.Higgins J, Green SE (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 7.Wells GA, Shea BJ, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M et al (2005) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies in meta-analyses. Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa. Available from http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
- 16.Lelong B, Meillat H, Zemmour C, Poizat F, Ewald J, Mege D et al (2017) Short- and mid-term outcomes after endoscopic transanal or laparoscopic transabdominal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a single institutional case-control study. J Am Coll Surg 224:917–925CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Chouillard EK, Chahine E, Quarisima S, Bonnet BV, Regnier A, Bors S (2016) Stanadardization of the approach to transanal notes total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer: is anatomy better preserved? Surg Endosc 20:537–544Google Scholar