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