The Pattern of Defects in Mesorectal Specimens: Is There a Difference between Transanal and Laparoscopic Approaches?

Perdawood, Sharaf Karim; Warnecke, M.; Bjoern, M. X.; Eiholm, Susanne

doi:10.1177/1457496918783725

Cited by 5 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 12 studies [ 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 34 35 36 38 ] reported operation time in 946 patients, and we found no statistically significant difference between TaTME and LaTME groups (MD, 7.52; 95% CI, −10.03–25.07; P = 0.400) ( Fig. 2A ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Finally, 16 cohort studies met all the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria ( Fig. 1 ) [ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ]. Seven of the cohort studies were case-matched studies comparing TaTME with LaTME for rectal cancer [ 25 28 29 30 31 36 38 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2A ). Perdawood et al [ 35 ] and Fernández-Hevia et al [ 24 ] reported a 2-team approach as standard; Alamili et al [ 32 ], Chen et al [ 34 ], Roodbeen et al [ 36 ], Sparreboom et al [ 38 ], Chang and Kiu [ 28 ], and Mege et al [ 30 ] used a 1-team approach. Persiani et al [ 31 ], Lelong et al [ 37 ], Chen et al [ 25 ], and Rasulov et al [ 26 ] used both a 1- and 2-team approach.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intraoperative blood loss repor ted in 6 studies [ 25 26 28 32 34 35 ] that investigated 462 patients ( Fig. 2B ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Meta-analysis of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a ‘New Health Technology’ assessment in South Korea

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Under the South Korea's unique health insurance structure, any new surgical technology must be evaluated first by the government in order to consider whether that particular technology can be applied to patients for further clinical trials as categorized as ‘New Health Technology,’ then potentially covered by the insurance sometime later. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer, activated by the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) TaTME committee. Methods We systematically searched Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane, and Korean databases (from their inception until August 31, 2019) for studies published that compare TaTME with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME). End-points included perioperative and pathological outcomes. Results Sixteen cohort studies (7 for case-matched studies) were identified, comprising 1,923 patients (938 TaTMEs and 985 LaTMEs). Regarding perioperative outcomes, the conversion rate was significantly lower in TaTME (risk ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.11–0.34; P < 0.001); whereas other perioperative outcomes were similar to LaTME. There were no statistically significant differences in pathological results between the 2 procedures. Conclusion Our meta-analysis showed comparable results in preoperative and pathologic outcomes between TaTME and LaTME, and indicated the benefit of TaTME with low conversion. Extensive evaluations of well-designed, multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to come to unequivocal conclusions, but the results showed that TaTME is a potentially beneficial technique in some specific cases. This meta-analysis suggests that TaTME can be performed for rectal cancer patients as a ‘New Health Technology’ endorsed by NECA in South Korea.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intraoperative blood loss repor ted in 6 studies [ 25 26 28 32 34 35 ] that investigated 462 patients ( Fig. 2B ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Meta-analysis of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a ‘New Health Technology’ assessment in South Korea

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Especially for patients with ultra-low rectal cancer or who intend to undergo intersphincteric resection, the rectal wall is incised through the anus, and then the space of internal and external sphincter is expanded and separated upward, the mesorectum can be completely removed. Perdawood et al [24] compared the mesorectal resection quality of rectal cancer, especially for tumors below the peritoneal reflex after TaTME and LaTME. It Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short- and mid-term outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current meta-analysis combining mid and low rectal cancer with no meta-analysis only for low rectal cancer was seen. This meta-analysis was to compare the short-and mid-term outcomes of the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for low rectal cancer. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using the web-based databases; China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Database, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Wanfang Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated using the Jadad scale and non-RCTs (NRCs) were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Ten studies (2 RCTs and 8 NRCs) involving 772 patients were included. Among them, 378 patients underwent TaTME and 394 patients underwent LaTME. Compared with the LaTME group, the conversion rate was low (risk ratio [RR], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.54; P < 0.001), the circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement was low (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.86; P = 0.010), and the hospital stay was short (mean difference,-1.72; 95% CI,-2.89 to-0.55; P = 0.004) in the TaTME group. No significant differences were seen in the mesorectal resection quality, CRM distance, distal resection margin (DRM) involvement, DRM distance, local R1 resection, intraoperative complications, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, severe morbidity, mortality, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, and local recurrence rate (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The TaTME is a promising surgical technique and is fully a safe and efficacious option in managing low rectal cancer.

show abstract

Pathologic outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 26 studies

Wang

et al. 2022

Int J Colorectal Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Pattern of Defects in Mesorectal Specimens: Is There a Difference between Transanal and Laparoscopic Approaches?

Abstract: The ratio of defects below the peritoneal reflection was lower in the transanal total mesorectal excision group. Whether this is due to a lower incidence of defect in transanal total mesorectal excision is not part of our study.

Cited by 5 publications

References 28 publications

Meta-analysis of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a ‘New Health Technology’ assessment in South Korea

Meta-analysis of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a ‘New Health Technology’ assessment in South Korea

Short- and mid-term outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Pathologic outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 26 studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About