Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41398682›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025

Comparison of transanal total mesorectal excision and robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

Guan-Yu Chen, Yen-Lin Yu, Yueh-Chen Lin, Yu-Jen Hsu, Yih-Jong Chern, Pao-Shiu Hsieh, Jy-Ming Chiang, Jeng-Fu You, Chun-Kai Liao

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Guan-Yu ChenDepartment of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, No. 5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Yen-Lin YuSchool of Medicine, Chang Gung University, No. 259, Wenhua 1st Road, Guishan Dist, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Yueh-Chen LinDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, No. 5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Yu-Jen HsuDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, No. 5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Yih-Jong ChernDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, No. 5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Pao-Shiu HsiehDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, No. 5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Jy-Ming ChiangDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, No. 5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Jeng-Fu YouDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, No. 5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Chun-Kai LiaoDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, No. 5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan. chunkai.liao@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7497-4444

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (robotic TME) have been developed to optimize mesorectal dissection quality in rectal cancer surgery. However, current evidence remains inconclusive regarding the comparative advantages between these two minimally invasive approaches. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients who underwent curative TaTME or robotic TME for rectal cancer at our institution from 2015 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcomes were circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and oncological outcomes (local recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival). Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative complications, and functional recovery. To adjust for baseline differences, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was employed.

resultsA total of 174 patients were included in the final analysis, comprising 110 who underwent TaTME and 64 who underwent robotic TME. While operative duration was comparable, the TaTME group exhibited increased intraoperative blood loss and higher rates of diverting stoma (72.6% vs. 51.7%, p < 0.001) and hand-sewn anastomosis (43.6% vs. 24.1%, p < 0.001) than the robotic TME group. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grade I) were more frequent in the TaTME group, though major morbidity was similarly low in both cohorts. Pathologically, TaTME was associated with a greater incidence of positive circumferential resection margins (CRM) (6.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.001) and shorter distal margins. Long-term oncological endpoints, including local recurrence, distant metastasis, overall survival, and disease-free survival were statistically similar.

conclusionsDespite certain technical drawbacks observed in TaTME, such as increased blood loss and CRM positivity, both techniques demonstrated equivalent long-term oncologic safety, indicating their appropriateness in selected patients undergoing rectal cancer resection.

Indexed as

Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative ComplicationsProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTransanal Endoscopic SurgeryAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalColorectal Surgical ProceduresDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedOverall survivalRectal cancerRobotic surgeryTotal mesorectal excisionTransanal total mesorectal excision

Identifiers

PMID41398682
PMCPMC12822170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.