ArticleSurgery today2025
Transanal total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
Article in Surgery today, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transanal versus transabdominal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in minimally invasive surgery: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Is Transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) as safe and effective as laparoscopic TME for low rectal cancer? A propensity score-matched analysis.Surgery today · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine the clinical impact of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT).
methodsThis retrospective study included 91 patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer after NACRT between 2011 and 2022. Among them, 24, 22, and 45 patients underwent open (Open), conventional laparoscopic (Lap), and TaTME surgeries, respectively. We compared their clinical outcomes.
resultsOperative time, blood loss, transfusion, morbidity, and hospital stay were significantly lower in the TaTME group than in the Open or Lap groups. The multivariate regression analyses identified only the TaTME approach as a significant factor for reducing morbidity. Both 3 yrear relapse-free survival (RFS) and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were significantly better in the TaTME group than in the Open or Lap groups (3 yr RFS: 94.7%, 80.4%, and 66.7%, and 3 yr LRFS: 100%, 90.5%, and 82.2% for the TaTME, Lap, and Open groups, respectively). Multivariate analyses of potential risk factors for recurrence identified body mass index, combined resection, and pathological stage, but not the TaTME approach, as significant predictors of recurrence.
conclusionTaTME reduced morbidity significantly in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing NACRT, compared with open or laparoscopic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40198362What 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.