ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Single-center comparative study of short-term outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excisions for low and middle rectal cancers.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. 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
- Short- and mid-term outcomes of transanal/transperineal minimally invasive surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Observational
- Reversed anatomy in transanal lateral lymph node dissection: landmarks and pitfalls.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransanal total mesorectal excision is a promising surgical treatment for rectal cancer. However, evidence regarding the differences in outcomes between the transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excisions is scarce. We compared the short-term outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excisions for low and middle rectal cancers.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent low anterior or intersphincteric resection for middle (5-10 cm) or low (< 5 cm) rectal cancer at the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan, from May 2013 to March 2020. Primary rectal adenocarcinoma was confirmed histologically. Circumferential resection margins (CRMs) of resected specimens were measured; margins ≤ 1 mm were considered positive. The operative time, blood loss, hospitalization length, postoperative readmission rate, and short-term treatment results were compared.
resultsFour hundred twenty-nine patients were divided into two mesorectal excision groups: transanal (n = 295) and laparoscopic (n = 134). Operative times were significantly shorter in the transanal group than in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). The pathological T stage and N status were not significantly different. The transanal group had significantly lower positive CRM rates (p = 0.04), and significantly lower incidence of the Clavien-Dindo grade III (p = 0.02) and IV (p = 0.03) complications. Both groups had distal margin positivity rates of 0%.
conclusionsCompared to laparoscopic, transanal total mesorectal excision for low and middle rectal cancers has lower incident postoperative complication and CRM-positivity rates, demonstrating the safety and usefulness of local curability for middle and low rectal cancers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36890411What 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.