Background Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is an innovative technique for distal rectal cancer dissection. It has been shown to have similar short-term outcomes to conventional open and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (cTME), but recent studies have raised concern about increased morbidity and local recurrence rates. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes after TaTME versus cTME for rectal cancer. Methods TaTME was implemented in 2014 using IDEAL principles in a single institution. The institution maintains databases for all patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery. This retrospective review compared data collected from all patients who had TaTME with those from a propensity-matched cohort of patients who underwent cTME. The primary outcome was a composite pathological measure combining margin status and quality of total mesorectal excision (TME). Short-term clinical and survival outcomes were also measured. Results Propensity matching created 109 matched pairs for analysis. Nine patients (8.3 per cent) undergoing TaTME had positive margins and/or incomplete TME, compared with 11 (10.5 per cent) undergoing cTME (P = 0.65). There were no significant differences in morbidity between the TaTME and cTME groups, including number of anastomotic leaks (13.8 versus 18.3 per cent; P = 0.37). The estimated 3-year local recurrence-free survival rate was 96.3 per cent in both groups (P = 0.39). Estimated 3-year overall (93.6 per cent for TaTME versus 94.5 per cent for cTME; P = 0.09) and disease-free (88.1 versus 76.1 per cent; P = 0.90) survival rates were similar. Conclusion TaTME provided similar outcomes to cTME for rectal cancer with the application of IDEAL principles.

Aim:The main objective of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR) versus low anterior resection (LAR) through a transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) approach.Method: A total of 360 adult patients with a diagnosis of rectal cancer were enrolled at participating centres from the Canadian taTME Expert Collaboration. Forty-three patients received taTME-APR and received 317 taTME-LAR. Demographic, operative, pathological and follow-up data were collected and merged into a single database. Results are presented as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval. All analyses were performed in the R environment (v.3.6). Results:The proportion of patients with a positive circumferential radial margin status was higher in the taTME-APR group than the taTME-LAR group (21% vs. 9%, p = 0.001).Complete TME was achieved in 91% of those undergoing APR compared with 96% of those undergoing LAR (p = 0.25). APR was associated with a greater rate of local recurrence relative to LAR, although it was not significant [crude HR = 3.53 (95% CI 0.92-13.53)]. Circumferential margin positivity was significantly associated with a higher rate of systemic recurrence [crude HR = 3.59 (95% CI 1.38-9.3)]. Conclusion:Our results demonstrate inferior outcomes in those undergoing taTME-APR compared with taTME-LAR. The use of this technique for this particular indication needs to be carefully considered.

No abstract