Outcomes of transanal vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer under routine clinical practice conditions - Summary - MDSpire

Outcomes of transanal vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer under routine clinical practice conditions

  • By

  • Chen Su

  • Junfeng Du

  • Yang Xie

  • Xiang Xu

  • Lanxin Hu

  • Xuefei Zhang

  • Yinggang Ge

  • Hongyu Zhang

  • July 8, 2026

  • 0 min

Share

Objective:

To evaluate the oncologic outcomes of one-team TaTME compared with LapTME in patients with mid and low rectal cancer treated under routine clinical practice conditions.

Approach:
  • Study Design: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted, analyzing patients undergoing curative TME for rectal adenocarcinoma from January 2018 to May 2022.
  • Patient Selection: Inclusion criteria included histologically confirmed mid- or low rectal adenocarcinoma, clinical stage cT1–T3, NO–N2 (M0), and age ≥ 18 years. Exclusion criteria included tumor invasion requiring abdominoperineal resection and severe organ dysfunction.
  • Surgical Techniques: Patients were categorized into TaTME or LapTME groups, with TaTME performed using a single-team sequential approach.
  • Data Collection: Clinical and pathological data were extracted from electronic medical records, including baseline variables, intraoperative data, and pathological outcomes.
  • Outcome Definitions: Primary outcomes included 3-year local recurrence and distant metastasis rates, while secondary outcomes included disease-free survival and overall survival.
  • Statistical Analysis: Propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for baseline differences between the TaTME and LapTME groups.
Key Findings:
  • TaTME demonstrated comparable oncologic outcomes to LapTME in terms of local recurrence and distant metastasis rates.
  • The study highlighted the importance of surgical expertise and standardization in achieving optimal outcomes.
  • Findings indicate that TaTME can be implemented in routine clinical practice under single-team workflows.
Interpretation:

The study provides insights into the feasibility and outcomes of TaTME compared to LapTME in standard clinical settings.

Limitations:
  • The study is retrospective and conducted at a single center, which may limit generalizability.
  • Potential biases related to non-random treatment assignment despite propensity score matching.
Conclusion:

The findings support the oncologic safety of TaTME in routine practice.

Original Source(s)

Related Content