ArticleBJS open2021
Transanal versus conventional total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer using the IDEAL framework for implementation.
Article in BJS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Committee Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Guideline
- Transanal versus transabdominal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in minimally invasive surgery: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Anastomotic leak rate following the implementation of a powered circular stapler in elective colorectal surgeries: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Challenges and Learning Curves in Adopting TaTME and Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Cusum Analysis.Cancers · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is an innovative technique for distal rectal cancer dissection. It has been shown to have similar short-term outcomes to conventional open and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (cTME), but recent studies have raised concern about increased morbidity and local recurrence rates. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes after TaTME versus cTME for rectal cancer.
methodsTaTME was implemented in 2014 using IDEAL principles in a single institution. The institution maintains databases for all patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery. This retrospective review compared data collected from all patients who had TaTME with those from a propensity-matched cohort of patients who underwent cTME. The primary outcome was a composite pathological measure combining margin status and quality of total mesorectal excision (TME). Short-term clinical and survival outcomes were also measured.
resultsPropensity matching created 109 matched pairs for analysis. Nine patients (8.3 per cent) undergoing TaTME had positive margins and/or incomplete TME, compared with 11 (10.5 per cent) undergoing cTME (P = 0.65). There were no significant differences in morbidity between the TaTME and cTME groups, including number of anastomotic leaks (13.8 versus 18.3 per cent; P = 0.37). The estimated 3-year local recurrence-free survival rate was 96.3 per cent in both groups (P = 0.39). Estimated 3-year overall (93.6 per cent for TaTME versus 94.5 per cent for cTME; P = 0.09) and disease-free (88.1 versus 76.1 per cent; P = 0.90) survival rates were similar.
conclusionTaTME provided similar outcomes to cTME for rectal cancer with the application of IDEAL principles.
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.