Background:The gold standard of rectal surgery remains total mesorrectal excision (ETM) in which laparoscopy is applied for its advantages. The attempt to avoid 17% conversion rate implies that transanal techniques are applied. Transanal ETM (TaETM) is performed by experimental groups with good oncological and morbimortality results. Objective: This study determines the quality of life and the anorectal function of these patients. Method: Observational study of two cohorts comparing patients undergoing rectal tumor surgery using TaETM or conventional ETM after a minimum of six months of intestinal transit reconstruction. EORTC-30, EORTC-29 quality of life questionnaires and the anorectal function assessment questionnaire (LARS score) are applied. General variables are also collected. Results: 31 patients between 2011 and 2014: 15 ETM group and 16 TaETM. We do not find statistically significant differences in quality of life questionnaires or in anorectal function. Statistically significant general variables: longer surgical time in the TaETM group. Nosocomial infection and minor suture failure in the TaETM group. Conclusion: The performance of TaETM achieves the same results in terms of quality of life and anorectal function as conventional ETM.

Background Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a minimally invasive surgical technique that tries to avoid conversion to open surgery. However, specific intraoperative complications and local recurrences have cast some doubt on the suitability of the technique. The primary endpoint of the present study was a composite outcome of conversion surgery. Secondary objectives were to assess postoperative recovery, and pathological and oncological outcomes. Methods This was a prospective, multicentre, randomized, controlled open-label study of patients diagnosed with mid and low rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent laparoscopic TaTME or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME). The TaTME technique comprised intracorporeal resection and anastomosis. Main outcomes were conversion to open surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity, mortality, pathological, oncological results, and survival. Modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol analyses were performed. Results The study was conducted between April 2015 and May 2021. Patients were randomized to the LaTME (57 patients) or TaTME (59) group. Fifty patients from the LaTME group and 55 from the TaTME group were eligible for mITT analysis. The procedure was converted to open surgery in 11 patients (11 per cent): 10 (20 per cent) in the LaTME group and 1 (2 per cent) in the laparoscopic TaTME group (difference 18.8, 95 per cent c.i. 30 to 7; P = 0.003). No significant differences were found in terms of postoperative recovery and morbidity at 30 days; nor were there significant differences in anastomotic leakage, although it was less common in laparoscopic TaTME. With a median follow-up of 39 months, there were three instances of local recurrence (6.1 per cent) in the LaTME group and one (1.8 per cent) in the laparoscopic TaTME group (95 per cent c.i. 60 to 69; P = 0.3). Registration number: NCT02550769 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). Conclusion The conversion rate was significantly lower in laparoscopic TaTME than in LaTME. At centres with experienced surgeons, laparoscopic TaTME can avoid conversion to open surgery.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02550769. Registration no. Ethical and Clinical Research Committee, Parc Taulí University Hospital: ID 2014/064.