SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2020
Total mesorectal excision for low and middle rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus transanal approach-a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 7 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.
- Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2024 for the treatment of colorectal cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Guideline
- Quality of life and functional outcomes after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer. an updated meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Pooled 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
- Long-term oncologic outcomes of transanal TME compared with transabdominal TME for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Pooled 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
- 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
- Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Long-term results of a randomized study comparing open surgery and laparoscopic surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients (Eld Lap study).Surgical endoscopy · 2021Trial
- Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted transanalWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Article
- Optimal surgical approach for cT3/T4 rectal cancer post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: robotic surgery versus TaTME guided by superior pelvic diaphragm localization.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes among laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision procedures in patients with rectal cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Impact of sex differences on risk factors for postoperative complications in transanal endoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a large-scale Japanese multicenter cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Anorectal and urogenital functional outcome after robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Benefit of laparoscopic two-team transanal beyond total mesorectal excision for advanced and recurrent rectal cancer with invasion: a retrospective study compared with conventional laparoscopic approach.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Prediction of postoperative complications following transanal total mesorectal excision in middle and low rectal cancer: development and internal validation of a clinical prediction model.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Treatment Options for Distal Rectal Cancer in the Era of Organ Preservation.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
- The role of transanal compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (taTME vs. lapTME) for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer in obese patients: outcomes of a multicenter propensity-matched analysis.Updates in surgery · 2023Observational
- International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons' preference on rectal cancer treatment.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Article
- Recurrence following transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a monocentric retrospective series of technically difficult cases.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Article
- Transanal total mesorectal excision: single center study on risk factors for major complications.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appeared to be a challenging alternative to Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LaTME) for low and middle rectal cancer. However, evidence remains low on the possible benefits of TaTME. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of comparative studies between TaTME and LaTME.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted on Medline, Embase, and Cochrane database. The following outcomes were assessed: conversion, operative time, morbidity, length of stay, readmission rate, and pathological and oncological results.
resultsAfter review of 756 identified records, 14 studies were included (case-matched control n = 10, prospective cohort n = 3, retrospective study n = 1) comparing 495 TaTME and 547 LaTME. No randomized trial was available. Following criteria were significantly improved after TaTME vs. LaTME: readmission's rate (9% after TaTME vs. 18% after LaTME, OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.26-0.74, p = 0.002), length of stay (OR - 2.17, 95%CI - 3.68 to - 0.66, p = 0.005), overall morbidity (34 vs. 41%, OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.46-0.91, p = 0.001), major morbidity (8.7 vs. 14%, OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.34-0.83, p = 0.005), anastomotic leak (6.4 vs. 11.6%, OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.31-0.93, p = 0.03), and circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement (4 vs. 8.8%, OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.27-0.86, p = 0.01). No significant differences were observed between TaTME and LaTME regarding conversion's rate (3.2 vs. 8.8%, p = 0.09), operative time (OR - 10.73, p = 0.26), intraoperative complications (8.1 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.48), minor morbidity (27.9 vs. 29.6%, p = 0.27), positive distal resection margin (1.4 vs. 1.4%, p = 0.93), complete TME (75 vs. 75%, p = 0.74), harvested lymph nodes (OR 0.38, p = 0.44), and local recurrence rate (3.5 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.64).
conclusionThis meta-analysis based on nonrandomized studies suggests that TaTME seems better than LaTME in terms of overall and major morbidities, anastomotic leak, readmission rate, CRM involvement, and length of stay. These results need to be confirmed by randomized controlled trial.
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.