SynthesisBJS open2025
Transanal versus transabdominal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in minimally invasive surgery: meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJS open, 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.
- Outcomes of transanal vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer under routine clinical practice conditions.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Comparison of Perioperative, Oncologic, and Functional Outcomes Following Robotic and Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Essential Updates 2024-2026: Advances in Colorectal Cancer Surgery.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
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
backgroundColorectal cancer is a common malignancy. Despite advances in minimally invasive surgery, achieving optimal outcomes for locally advanced rectal cancer remains challenging. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is an alternative to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME), but inconsistent data warrant a comprehensive meta-analysis of the two procedures.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2025 using keywords related to rectal cancer and TaTME. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO. Inclusion criteria followed the PICOS framework, selecting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing TaTME with LapTME or robotic total mesorectal excision (TME). Studies reporting on non-malignant cases, single-arm studies, and studies with insufficient data for analysis were excluded. Primary outcomes of interest were surgical metrics (operative time, conversion rates), pathological outcomes (circumferential resection margin (CRM), TME completion), oncological outcomes (local recurrence, overall survival), and functional outcomes (major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS)).
resultsIn all, 65 studies involving 13 972 participants met the inclusion criteria. TaTME had lower conversion rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.35; 95% c.i. 0.24 to 0.51; P < 0.01), improved TME completeness (OR 1.26; 95% c.i. 1.02 to 1.55; P = 0.03), and lower CRM positivity (OR 0.7; 95% c.i. 0.58 to 0.85; P < 0.01) compared with LapTME. Local recurrence was reduced (OR 0.69; 95% c.i. 0.55 to 0.87; P < 0.01) and overall survival improved (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% c.i. 0.70 to 0.91; P < 0.01) following TaTME, but TaTME was associated with a higher risk of major LARS (OR 1.58; 95% c.i. 1.11 to 2.24; P = 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed consistent results across RCTs and cohort studies.
conclusionTaTME offers several advantages over LapTME, including lower conversion rates and improved CRM and oncological outcomes. The increased risk of major LARS with TaTME underscores the importance of balancing functional outcomes with other benefits. Future research should focus on optimizing functional recovery and addressing high heterogeneity across studies.
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.