ReviewUpdates in surgery2019
Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME): current status and future perspectives.
Review in Updates in surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pathologic outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 26 studies.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Pooled 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
- Analysis of the impact of the learning curve and other factors on the duration of TaTME procedures.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Review
- A novel technique for low-rectal cancer: Pushing the anus in laparoscopic radical resection.Medicine · 2025Observational
- Oncological surgical outcomes for colorectal cancer surgery with loco-regional anesthesia: A feasibility study.Saudi medical journal · 2025Article
- Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in colorectal cancer management: a narrative review of clinical efficacy and multidisciplinary integration.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Changes to circulating tumor cells in the central vein during laparoscopic versus transanal endoscopic surgeries for rectal cancer: can surgical approach make a difference?Gastroenterology report · 2024Article
- Transanal intersphincteric under direct view in the jackknife position combined with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for treating ultra-low rectal cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Oncological monitoring after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal neoplasia.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic vs robotic vs transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Review
- Article
- Innovation in gastrointestinal surgery: the evolution of minimally invasive surgery-a narrative review.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Indocyanine green angiography for lower incidence of anastomotic leakage after transanal total mesorectal excision: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Simple transanal total mesorectal resection versus laparoscopic transabdominal total mesorectal resection for the treatment of low rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective case-control study.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection vs. transanal total mesorectal excision in overweight patients with low rectal cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Outcomes of robotic low anterior resection versus transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.BJS open · 2021Article
- SP rTaTME: initial clinical experience with single-port robotic transanal total mesorectal excision (SP rTaTME).Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Article
- Colonic pouch confers better bowel function and similar postoperative outcomes compared to straight anastomosis for low rectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard surgical treatment for mid- and low rectal cancer; however, it is associated with specific technical hurdles. Transanal TME (TaTME) is a new procedure developed to overcome these difficulties, through an enhanced visualization of the dissection plane. This potentially could result in a more accurate distal dissection with a lower rate of positive circumferential resection margins, increasing the rate of sphincter-saving procedures. The indications for TaTME are currently expanding, despite not being yet standardized, and structured training programs are ongoing to help overcome the steep learning curve related to the technique. The procedure is feasible and safe with similar intraoperative complications and readmission rates when compared with conventional open or laparoscopic TME. Favorable short-term oncologic results have been reported: in particular, TaTME is associated with mesorectal specimen of a better quality and a longer distal resection margin that is established at the beginning of the procedure under direct view. Robotics, when available, will probably overcome the steep learning curve related to the complexity of TaTME. Long-term follow-up and ongoing RCT trials data are awaited regarding functional results, local recurrence and survival, and to facilitate the comparison with standard laparoscopic or robotic rectal resections. The present review is focused on critically analyzing the theoretical benefits and risks of the procedure, its indications, short- and long-term results and future direction in the application of TaTME.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30734896What 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.