Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27178183›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2016

Transanal TATA/TME: a case-matched study of taTME versus laparoscopic TME surgery for rectal cancer.

J H Marks, G A Montenegro, J F Salem, M V Shields, G J Marks

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Meta-analysis of transanalWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J H MarksDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Lankenau Medical Center, Medical Office Building West, Suite 330, 100 East Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood, PA, 19096, USA. marksj@mlhs.org.
G A MontenegroDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Lankenau Medical Center, Medical Office Building West, Suite 330, 100 East Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood, PA, 19096, USA.
J F SalemDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Lankenau Medical Center, Medical Office Building West, Suite 330, 100 East Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood, PA, 19096, USA.
M V ShieldsDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Lankenau Medical Center, Medical Office Building West, Suite 330, 100 East Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood, PA, 19096, USA.
G J MarksDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Lankenau Medical Center, Medical Office Building West, Suite 330, 100 East Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood, PA, 19096, USA.
Lankenau Medical Center · USSaint Louis University Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNatural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has always made more sense in the colorectal field where the target organ for entry houses the pathology. To address the question whether an adequate total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be performed from a transanal bottoms-up approach, we performed a case-matched study.

methodsStarting in 2009, transanal TME (taTME) surgery was selectively used for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy and prospectively entered into a database. Between March 2012 and February 2014, 17 consecutive taTME rectal cancer patients were identified and case-matched to multiport laparoscopic TME (MP TME) based on age, body mass index, uT stage, radiation dose, level in the rectum, and procedure. Perioperative outcomes, morbidity, mortality, local recurrence, completeness of TME, and radial and distal margins were analyzed. Statistically significant differences were identified using Student's t test.

resultsThere were 12 transanal abdominal transanal (TATA)/5 abdominoperineal resection procedures in each group. Data regarding overall/taTME/MP TME are as follows: % positive-circumferential margin: 2.9/0/5.9 % (p = 0.32). Distal margin: 0/0/0 %. Complete or near-complete TME: 97.1/100/94.1 % (p = 0.32). Incomplete TME 2.9/0/5.9 % (p = 0.32). Local recurrence: 2.9/5.9/0 % (p = 0.32). There were no perioperative mortalities. Morbidity in each group: 26.4/23.5/29.4 % (p = 0.79). There were no differences in perioperative or postoperative outcomes except days to clear liquids (1/2 days, p = 0.03) and largest incision length (1.3/2.6 cm, p = 0.05).

conclusionsWe demonstrated no differences in perioperative/postoperative outcomes or pathologic TME outcomes of transanal or bottoms-up TME compared to standard laparoscopic TME. TaTME is a promising progressive approach to NOTES and deserves additional evaluation.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLymph Node ExcisionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalTransanal Endoscopic SurgeryAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCase-Control StudiesChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHumansMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm, ResidualLaparoscopic surgeryNOTESRectal cancerSphincter-preserving surgeryTAMISTATATaTME

Identifiers

PMID27178183
OpenAlexW2388595179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.