Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction Total mesorectal excision (TME) is an essential component of surgical management of rectal cancer. Both open and laparoscopic TME have been proven to be oncologically safe. However, it remains a challenge to achieve complete TME with clear circumferential resections margin (CRM) with the conventional transabdominal approach, particularly in mid and low rectal tumours. Transanal TME (TaTME) was developed to improve oncological and functional outcomes of patients with mid and low rectal cancer. Methods An international, multicentre, superiority, randomised trial was designed to compare TaTME and conventional laparoscopic TME as the surgical treatment of mid and low rectal carcinomas. The primary endpoint is involved CRM. Secondary endpoints include completeness of mesorectum, residual mesorectum, morbidity and mortality, local recurrence, disease-free and overall survival, percentage of sphincter-saving procedures, functional outcome and quality of life. A Quality Assurance Protocol including centralised MRI review, histopathology re-evaluation, standardisation of surgical techniques, and monitoring and assessment of surgical quality will be conducted. Discussion The difference in involvement of CRM between the two treatment strategies is thought to be in favour of the TaTME. TaTME is therefore expected to be superior to laparoscopic TME in terms of oncological outcomes in case of mid and low rectal carcinomas.

BackgroundDividing a surgical procedure into a sequence of identifiable and meaningful steps facilitates intraoperative video data acquisition and storage. These efforts are especially valuable for technically challenging procedures that require intraoperative video analysis, such as transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME); however, manual video indexing is time-consuming. Thus, in this study, we constructed an annotated video dataset for TaTME with surgical step information and evaluated the performance of a deep learning model in recognizing the surgical steps in TaTME.MethodsThis was a single-institutional retrospective feasibility study. All TaTME intraoperative videos were divided into frames. Each frame was manually annotated as one of the following major steps: (1) purse-string closure; (2) full thickness transection of the rectal wall; (3) down-to-up dissection; (4) dissection after rendezvous; and (5) purse-string suture for stapled anastomosis. Steps 3 and 4 were each further classified into four sub-steps, specifically, for dissection of the anterior, posterior, right, and left planes. A convolutional neural network-based deep learning model, Xception, was utilized for the surgical step classification task.ResultsOur dataset containing 50 TaTME videos was randomly divided into two subsets for training and testing with 40 and 10 videos, respectively. The overall accuracy obtained for all classification steps was 93.2%. By contrast, when sub-step classification was included in the performance analysis, a mean accuracy (± standard deviation) of 78% (± 5%), with a maximum accuracy of 85%, was obtained.ConclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study based on automatic surgical step classification for TaTME. Our deep learning model self-learned and recognized the classification steps in TaTME videos with high accuracy after training. Thus, our model can be applied to a system for intraoperative guidance or for postoperative video indexing and analysis in TaTME procedures.

Background Total mesorectal excision is the standard surgical treatment for mid- and low-rectal cancer. Laparoscopy represents a clear leap forward in the management of rectal cancer patients, offering significant improvements in post-operative measures such as pain, first bowel movement, and hospital length of stay. However, there are still some limits to its applications, especially in difficult cases. Such cases may entail either conversion to an open procedure or positive resection margins. Transanal endoscopic proctectomy (ETAP) was recently described and could address the difficulties of approaching the lower third of the rectum. Early series and case-control studies have shown favourable short-term results, such as a low conversion rate, reduced hospital length of stay and oncological outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery. The aim of the proposed study is to compare the rate of positive resection margins (R1 resection) with ETAP versus laparoscopic proctectomy (LAP), with patients randomly assigned to each arm. Methods/design The proposed study is a multicentre randomised trial using two parallel groups to compare ETAP and LAP. Patients with T3 lower-third rectal adenocarcinomas for whom conservative surgery with manual coloanal anastomosis is planned will be recruited. Randomisation will be performed immediately prior to surgery after ensuring that the patient meets the inclusion criteria and completing the baseline functional and quality of life tests. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial with a main criterion of R0/R1 resection. Secondary endpoints will include the conversion rate, the minimal invasiveness of the abdominal approach, postoperative morbidity, the length of hospital stay, mesorectal macroscopic assessment, functional urologic and sexual results, faecal continence, global quality of life, stoma-free survival, and disease-free survival at 3 years. The inclusion period will be 3 years, and every patient will be followed for 3 years. The number of patients needed is 226. Discussion There is a strong need for optimal evaluation of the ETAP because of substancial changes in the operative technique. Assessment of oncological safety and septic risk, as well as digestive and urological functional results, is particularily mandatory. Moreover, benefits of the ETAP technique could be demonstrated  in post-operative outcome. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT02584985 . Date and version identifier : Version n°2 – 2015 July 6.

Objective Preliminary results of the transanal approach for low rectal cancer suggest better oncological outcomes than the conventional laparoscopic approach. We currently report the functional results. Methods From 2008 to 2012, 100 patients with low rectal cancer and suitable for sphincter-saving resection were randomized between transanal and laparoscopic low rectal dissection. Patients derived from this randomized trial were enrolled for functional assessment. End points were bowel function (LARS bowel and Wexner continence scores) and urogenital function (IPSS, IIEF-5 and FSFI-6 scores) obtained by questionnaires sent to patients with a follow-up more than 12 months. Results Overall, 76 patients were eligible and 72 responded to the questionnaire: 38 in the transanal group and 34 in the laparoscopic group. The bowel function did not differ between the transanal and the laparoscopic groups: LARS 36 versus 37 ( p  = 0.941) and Wexner 9 versus 10 ( p  = 0.786). The urologic function was also similar between the two groups: IPSS 5.5 versus 3.5 ( p  = 0.821). Among sexually active patients before surgery, 20 of 28 (71 %) patients in the transanal group and 9 of 23 (39 %) in the laparoscopic group maintained an activity after surgery ( p  = 0.02). Erectile function was also better in men after transanal compared to laparoscopic low rectal dissection: IIEF 17 versus 7 ( p  = 0.119). Conclusion Transanal approach for low rectal cancer did not change bowel and urologic functions compared to the conventional laparoscopic approach. However, there was a trend to a better erectile function with a significantly higher rate of sexual activity in the transanal group.

BackgroundRobotic surgery and transanal minimally invasive surgery are the two recently developed techniques, which can overcome the difficult pelvic dissection in conventional laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare the early cases of robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) using propensity score matching.MethodsThe first 40 cases of taTME and the first 80 sphincter-saving robotic total mesorectal resection for rectal cancer were selected from the prospectively collected database. Using propensity score matching, the outcomes of 40 matched cases of robotic TME were compared with the 40 cases of taTME.ResultsBefore matching, patients in the taTME group were significantly younger. The tumors were smaller but more distally located. Significantly more patients in the taTME group received preoperative chemoradiation. After matching, the two groups did not show any differences in gender, age, comorbidity, the level of tumors, and incidences of preoperative chemoradiation. The operating time was significantly shorter (254 vs. 170 min, p < 0.05) and the blood loss was less (50 vs. 150 ml, p = 0.002) in the taTME group. Conversion rate was 5% in both groups. There was no difference in the hospital stay, overall morbidity, the anastomotic leakage rate, and the urinary complication rate between the two groups. More patients in the taTME group did not require a separate abdominal incision. The distal margin, the number of lymph nodes examined, and the rate positive circumferential margin (0 vs. 5%, p = 0.494) were also similar between the two groups.ConclusionsBoth taTME and robotic surgery can achieve favorable outcomes in the rectal cancer resection. Comparison of the early experience of the two procedures with propensity score matching showed the taTME was associated with a shorter operating time, less blood loss, and a higher rate of transanal extraction of the specimen. Further evaluation by randomized trials is warranted.

Background Retrorectal tumors are uncommon lesions developed in the retrorectal space. Data on their minimally invasive resection are scarce and the optimal surgical approach for tumors below S3 remains debated. Methods We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive resection of retrorectal tumors between 2005 and 2022 at two tertiary university hospital centers, by comparing the results obtained for lesions located above or below S3. Results Of over 41 patients identified with retrorectal tumors, surgical approach was minimally invasive for 23 patients, with laparoscopy alone in 19, with transanal excision in 2, and with combined approach in 2. Retrorectal tumor was above S3 in 11 patients (> S3 group) and below S3 in 12 patients (< S3 group). Patient characteristics and median tumor size were not significantly different between the two groups (60 vs 67 mm; p  = 0.975). Overall median operative time was 131.5 min and conversion rate was 13% without significant difference between the two groups (126 vs 197 min and 18% vs 8%, respectively; p  > 0.05). Final pathology was tailgut cyst (48%), schwannoma (22%), neural origin tumor (17%), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (4%), and other (19%). The 90-day complication rates were 27% and 58% in the > S3 and < S3 groups, respectively, without severe morbidity or mortality. After a median follow-up of 3.3 years, no recurrence was observed in both groups. Three patients presented chronic pain, three anal dysfunction, and three urinary dysfunction. All were successfully managed without reintervention. Conclusions Minimally invasive surgery for retrorectal tumors can be performed safely and effectively with low morbidity and no mortality. Laparoscopic and transanal techniques alone or in combination may be recommended as the treatment of choice of benign retrorectal tumors, even for lesions below S3, in centers experienced with minimally invasive surgery.

BackgroundSurgical treatment for low rectal cancer septic complications often requires an ileostomy for fecal diversion. Delayed coloanal anastomosis (CAA) has been performed for several years to reduce septic complications and to avoid ileostomy. The aim of this study was to report the technical, functional and oncological results of delayed CAA in patients operated on for low rectal cancer focusing on pelvic septic complications.MethodsAll consecutive patients operated on for low rectal cancer suitable for total mesorectal excision and two-step delayed CAA at a single institution between May 2000 and September 2013 were included in the study. Patients’ characteristics, operative and postoperative outcomes, long-term technical, functional and oncological results from a prospectively maintained database, were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsA total of 85 consecutive patients (69 men), of median age 63 years (range 42–83 years) were included. Median delay between the first and the second step of the operation was 6 days (range 2–13 days). Twenty-one patients (25%) developed pelvic sepsis, nine of them (10.6%) developed an anastomotic leak. Twenty-three patients had a definitive stoma at the end of follow-up. Seventeen patients (29%) experienced a poor functional result. Thirty-three patients (38%) presented with recurrence at a median follow-up of 59 months (range 12–135 months). Seven (8.2%) developed a local recurrence, 18 a distant metastasis (21.1%) and 8 (9.4%) both a local and distant recurrence.ConclusionsIn our series, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with delayed coloanal anastomosis was associated with septic complications and oncologic results similar to those reported after total mesorectal excision with conventional anastomosis and ileostomy, nearly one-third of patients experience a poor functional result. A randomized trial comparing these two options for low rectal cancer is under way.

BackgroundThe management of rectal cancer has evolved over the years, including the recent rise of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME). TaTME addresses the limitations created by the bony confines of the pelvis, bulky tumours, and fatty mesorectum, particularly for low rectal cancers. However, guidance is required to ensure safe implementation and to avoid the pitfalls and potential major morbidity encountered by the early adopters of TaTME. We report a broad international consensus statement, which provides a basis for optimal clinical practice.MethodsForty international experts were invited to participate based on clinical and academic achievements. The consensus statements were developed using Delphi methodology incorporating three successive rounds. Consensus was defined as agreement by 80% or more of the experts.ResultsA total of 37 colorectal surgeons from 20 countries and 5 continents (Europe, Asia, North and South America, Australasia) contributed to the consensus. Participation to the iterative Delphi rounds was 100%. An expert radiologist, pathologist, and medical oncologist provided recommendations to maximize relevance to current practice. Consensus was obtained on all seven different chapters: patient selection and surgical indication, perioperative management, patient positioning and operating room set up, surgical technique, devices and instruments, pelvic anatomy, TaTME training, and outcomes analysis.ConclusionsThis multidisciplinary consensus statement achieved more than 80% approval and can thus be graded as strong recommendation, yet acknowledging the current lack of high level evidence. It provides the best possible guidance for safe implementation and practice of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision.

Background The interest and adoption of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is growing amongst the colorectal surgical community, but there is no clear guidance on the optimal training framework to ensure safe practice for this novel operation. The aim of this study was to establish a consensus on a detailed structured training curriculum for TaTME. Methods A consensus process to agree on the framework of the TaTME training curriculum was conducted, seeking views of 207 surgeons across 18 different countries, including 52 international experts in the field of TaTME. The process consisted of surveying potential learners of this technique, an international experts workshop and a final expert’s consensus to draw an agreement on essential elements of the curriculum. Results Appropriate case selection was strongly recommended, and TaTME should be offered to patients with mid and low rectal cancers, but not proximal rectal cancers. Pre-requisites to learn TaTME should include completion of training and accreditation in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, with prior experience in transanal surgery. Ideally, two surgeons should undergo training together in centres with high volume for rectal cancer surgery. Mentorship and multidisciplinary training were the two most important aspects of the curriculum, which should also include online modules and simulated training for purse-string suturing. Mentors should have performed at least 20 TaTME cases and be experienced in laparoscopic training. Reviewing the specimens’ quality, clinical outcome data and entering data into a registry were recommended. Assessment should be an integral part of the curriculum using Global Assessment Scales, as formative assessment to promote learning and competency assessment tool as summative assessment. Conclusions A detailed framework for a structured TaTME training curriculum has been proposed. It encompasses various training modalities and assessment, as well as having the potential to provide quality control and future research initiatives for this novel technique.

BackgroundThe standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal technique. No clear consensus exists regarding the length of the learning curve for the minimal invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the learning curve of minimal invasive TME.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies with the primary or secondary aim to assess the learning curve of either laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was length of the learning curve per minimal invasive technique. Descriptive statistics were used to present results and the MINORS tool was used to assess risk of bias.Results45 studies, with 7562 patients, were included in this systematic review. Length of the learning curve based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, or a composite endpoint using a risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was 50 procedures for the laparoscopic technique, 32–75 procedures for the robot-assisted technique and 36–54 procedures for the transanal technique. Due to the low quality of studies and a high level of heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be performed. Heterogeneity was caused by patient-related factors, surgeon-related factors and differences in statistical methods.ConclusionCurrent high-quality literature regarding length of the learning curve of minimal invasive TME techniques is scarce. Available literature suggests equal lengths of the learning curves of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal TME. Well-designed studies, using adequate statistical methods are required to properly assess the learning curve, while taking into account patient-related and surgeon-related factors.