ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Effect of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes with laparoscopic and open surgeries.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 11 of them syntheses 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.
- EAES, ESCP, and ESGAR update on taTME for rectal cancer-systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of matched cohort studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Transanal versus transabdominal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in minimally invasive surgery: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing perioperative and oncological outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- UEG and EAES rapid guideline: Systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed European recommendations on TaTME for rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Guideline
- Mid- and low-rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open treatment-short- and long-term results. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Pooled 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
- Impact of Surgical Approach on Surgical Resection Quality in Mid- and Low Rectal Cancer, A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Total mesorectal excision for low and middle rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus transanal approach-a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Pathological outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- Surgical resection for rectal cancer. Is laparoscopic surgery as successful as open approach? A systematic review with meta-analysis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- A randomized clinical trial comparing the initial vascular approach to the inferior mesenteric vein versus the inferior mesenteric artery in laparoscopic surgery of rectal cancer and sigmoid colon cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Trial
- Long-term oncologic outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision: a single-center cohort with a minimum of 5-year follow-up.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Oncologic outcomes following transanal total mesorectal excision: the United States experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Observational
- Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes.The world journal of men's health · 2024Review
- Is survival after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) worse than that after traditional total mesorectal excision? A retrospective propensity score-adjusted cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Oncological monitoring after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal neoplasia.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Recurrence following transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a monocentric retrospective series of technically difficult cases.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Article
- A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023Article
- Quality of life and functional outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer-results from the implementation period in Denmark.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare short-term results of total mesorectal excision (TME) for mid and low rectal cancer, achieved by transanal (TaTME), laparoscopic (LaTME), and open (OpTME) approaches.
backgroundThe impact of TaTME on the surgical treatment of mid and low rectal cancer has yet to be clarified.
methodsThis is a case-matched study, based on data from a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent TaTME from May 2015 to March 2017, and a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent LaTME and OpTME in the previous period. Each patient in the TaTME group was matched to one LaTME and one OpTME based on sex, BMI, tumor status, and the height of the tumor from the anal verge. Primary end-points were rates of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin, and the macroscopic quality of the surgical specimen. Composite of these outcomes was compared as an indication for successful surgery. Secondary end-points included intraoperative data and postoperative course and complications.
resultsThree hundred patients were included (TaTME = 100, LaTME = 100, OpTME = 100). The three groups were comparable in the baseline characteristics. TaTME resulted in lower rates of incomplete TME specimens than LaTME, but not OpTME (P = 0.016, P = 0.750, respectively). The rates of CRM involvement, mean CRM distance, and the percentages of successful surgery were comparable among the three groups (P = 0.368). The conversion to open surgery occurred only in the LaTME group. TaTME resulted in shorter operation time and less blood loss than the other two groups (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter in the TaTME group (P = 0.002); complication rate and mortality were comparable among the groups.
conclusionsTaTME had, in our hands, some obvious benefits over other approaches. The pathological results were not significantly superior to LaTME and OpTME. The procedure is however feasible and safe. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term oncological and quality of life outcomes.
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.