ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Transanal total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Committee Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Guideline
- EAES, ESCP, and ESGAR update on taTME for rectal cancer-systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Transanal versus transabdominal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in minimally invasive surgery: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- The Effects of Intersphincteric Space Dissection Approaches on Low Rectal Cancer Outcomes: A Multicenter Retrospective Study in China.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnus-preserving surgery for low rectal cancer has always been a serious difficulty for surgeons. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) are commonly used Anus-preserving surgeries for low rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical use of two surgical methods.
methodsA total of 152 patients with low rectal cancer were treated with taTME in 75 cases and ISR in 77 cases. After propensity score matching, 46 patients in each group were included in the study. Perioperative outcomes, anal function scores (Wexner incontinence score) and quality of life scores (EORTC QLQ C30, EORTC QLQ CR38) at least 1 year after surgery were compared between the two groups.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of surgical outcomes, pathological examination of surgical specimens, postoperative recovery, and postoperative complications, except for patients in the taTME group who had their indwelling catheters removed later. Anal Wexner incontinence score was lower in taTME group than ISR group (P < 0.05). On the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale, the physical function and role function scores in the ISR group were lower than those in the taTME group (P < 0.05), while the fatigue, pain symptoms, and constipation scores in the ISR group were higher than those in the taTME group (P < 0.05). On the EORTC QLQ-CR38 scale, the scores of gastrointestinal symptoms and defecation problems in the ISR group were higher than those in the taTME group (P < 0.05).
conclusionCompared with ISR surgery, taTME surgery is comparable in terms of surgical safety and short-term efficacy, and has better long-term anal function and quality of life. From the perspective of long-term anal function and quality of life, taTME surgery is a better surgical method for the treatment of low rectal cancer.
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.