ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2025
Minimally invasive transanal excision for rectal tumors: technical feasibility compared to conventional approach.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-port robotic versus laparoscopic transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for rectal neoplasms: a first comparative analysis of surgical efficiency and clinical outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal tumors with or without dentate line involvement: a propensity score matching analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive transanal excision over conventional transanal excision: pursuing the perfect removal of early rectal cancer.Annals of coloproctology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited.
methodsBetween 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups.
resultsThere were no significant differences observed in patient's demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation.
conclusionThe minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.
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.