SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2016
Clinical outcomes and case volume effect of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Transanal versus abdominal low rectal dissection for rectal cancer: long-term results of the Bordeaux' randomized trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Trial
- Article
- Review
- Transanal total mesorectal excision: short- and long-term results of four certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Transanal total mesorectal excision: short- and long-term results of four certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Essential knowledge and technical tips for total mesorectal excision and related procedures for rectal cancer.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Review
- Treatment Options for Distal Rectal Cancer in the Era of Organ Preservation.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
- Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in rectal cancer treatment within an expert center.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- What Is the Comparative Efficacy of Surgical, Endoscopic, Transanal Resection, and Radiotherapy Modalities in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Recurrence following transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a monocentric retrospective series of technically difficult cases.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Article
- Feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for low rectal cancer combined with transanal total mesorectal excision.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Automatic purse-string suture skill assessment in transanal total mesorectal excision using deep learning-based video analysis.BJS open · 2023Article
- Meta-analysis of transanalWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Article
- Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2022Article
- Mesentery in Transanal TME.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022Review
- Development and evaluation of a virtual knowledge assessment tool for transanal total mesorectal excision.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Article
- Limitations and Concerns with Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022Review
- Transanal total mesorectal excision: short- and long-term results of the first hundred cases of a certified colorectal cancer center in Germany.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Development of a performance rubric for transanal endoscopic rectal purse-string sutures.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Article
12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been developed to improve quality of TME for patients with mid and low rectal cancer. However, despite enthusiastic uptake and teaching facilities, concern exists for safe introduction. TaTME is a complex procedure and potentially a learning curve will hamper clinical outcome. With this systematic review, we aim to provide data regarding morbidity and safety of TaTME. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid) and Cochrane Library. Case reports, cohort series and comparative series on TaTME for rectal cancer were included. To evaluate a potential effect of case volume, low-volume centres (n ≤ 30 total volume) were compared with high-volume centres (n > 30 total volume). Thirty-three studies were identified (three case reports, 25 case series, five comparative studies), including 794 patients. Conversion was performed in 3.0% of the procedures. The complication rate was 40.3, and 11.5% were major complications. The quality of the mesorectum was "complete" in 87.6%, and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was involved in 4.7%. In low- versus high-volume centres, the conversion rate was 4.3 versus 2.7%, and major complication rates were 12.2 versus 10.5%, respectively. TME quality was "complete" in 80.5 versus 89.7%, and CRM involvement was 4.8 and 4.5% in low- versus high-volume centres, respectively. TaTME for mid and low rectal cancer is a promising technique; however, it is associated with considerable morbidity. Safe implementation of the TaTME should include proctoring and quality assurance preferably within a trial setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.