ReviewCureus2025
Comparing the Surgical Outcomes of Intersphincteric Resection (ISR) and Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TATME) in Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rectal cancer management has evolved significantly with the introduction of sphincter-preserving techniques, particularly intersphincteric resection (ISR) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TATME), aimed at improving oncologic safety while maintaining functional outcomes. Despite increasing use, comparative evidence remains limited. This meta-analysis evaluated surgical and oncologic outcomes of ISR versus TATME in patients with low rectal cancer. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, ProQuest, and Google Scholar identified eligible randomized and observational studies published between January 2016 and March 2025. Five studies, including one randomized controlled trial, two propensity-matched analyses, and two comparative cohort studies, comprising 1,630 patients (ISR=802; TATME=828), were included. Pooled data demonstrated no significant difference in anastomotic leakage rates between ISR and TATME (OR=0.86; 95% CI: 0.58-1.26; p=0.42) and similar circumferential resection margin positivity (OR=0.91; 95% CI: 0.62-1.33; p=0.62), indicating comparable oncologic quality. Local recurrence rates were also equivalent (OR=0.94; 95% CI: 0.64-1.39; p=0.77). However, TATME demonstrated a significantly lower rate of postoperative complications (OR=0.61; 95% CI: 0.44-0.84; p=0.003), suggesting improved short-term recovery. Conversely, TATME required longer operative time compared with ISR (OR=1.74; 95% CI: 1.30-2.32; p=0.0002), likely reflecting technical demands and the learning curve. Overall, both techniques achieved comparable oncologic safety, with TATME offering reduced postoperative morbidity at the cost of increased operative duration. These findings support TATME as a safe and effective alternative to ISR in specialized centers with appropriate expertise. Future large-scale randomized trials with long-term follow-up are required to validate functional outcomes and refine patient selection.
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.