SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
EAES, ESCP, and ESGAR update on taTME for rectal cancer-systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing patient-important outcomes among different surgical approaches to total mesorectal excision (TME) for patients with rectal cancer.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central to identify articles of interest published prior to October 17th, 2024, to identify RCTs and observational studies comparing outcomes between transanal TME (taTME), laparoscopic TME (laTME), and robotic TME (roTME) for patients with low- and mid-rectal cancers. The multidisciplinary panel prioritized outcomes and established objective decision thresholds a priori. Two reviewers completed article screening, data extraction, and risk of bias appraisal. We performed a random effects meta-analysis. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to compare the durability of results between studies at low/moderate versus high risk of bias.
resultsWe identified 35 reports of 32 studies from 8,228 articles. Patients had a mean age ± standard deviation (SD) of 62.6 ± 14.0, 62.6 ± 14.1, and 63.2 ± 12.7 years for patients that underwent taTME, laTME, and roTME, respectively. Most patients were diagnosed with stage II (36.5%, 38.6%, and 33.5%) or stage III (43.5%, 44.1%, and 55.8%) rectal cancer. There were 43 fewer [95% CI 71 fewer to 18 more] 30-day major complications per 1000 patients undergoing taTME compared to laTME. There were 34 fewer disease recurrences at two years [95% CI 53 fewer to 11 fewer] per 1000 patients undergoing taTME compared to laTME. There were either no clinically important differences or high uncertainty in all outcomes between those undergoing taTME versus roTME for low- and mid-rectal cancer.
conclusionPatients with low- and mid-rectal cancer undergoing taTME may confer a lower likelihood of 30-day major complications and disease recurrence at 2 years compared to laTME. Additional comparative studies are needed between taTME and roTME in patients with rectal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41350785What 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.