ReviewEuroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterology
Transanal vs Laparoscopic and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid-to-low Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Oncological Functional and Postoperative Outcomes.
Review in Euroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterology. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and background: Minimally invasive approaches to rectal cancer surgery, including transanal, robotic, and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), continue to evolve. Comparative evidence regarding their efficacy and safety remains limited. This study compared oncological, functional, and postoperative outcomes of transanal vs laparoscopic and robotic TME (R-TME) for mid-to-low rectal cancer. Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and 2025 was conducted using PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Embase. Studies comparing transanal TME (TaTME) with laparoscopic or robotic approaches in adults with mid-to-low rectal cancer were included. Assessed outcomes included oncological, functional, and postoperative outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Due to heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively. Results: Of 1,085 studies screened, five RCTs comparing transanal with L-TME met inclusion criteria; no trials compared transanal with robotic approaches. Oncological outcomes were comparable between groups. Transanal TME demonstrated a possible trend toward improved sexual function, although findings were limited by small sample sizes. One trial had a low risk of bias, and four had a moderate risk. Conclusion: Current randomized evidence suggests that TaTME has oncological and postoperative outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery in selected patients and experienced centers, although evidence of functional benefit remains limited and inconclusive. Further randomized trials comparing it with robotic approaches are warranted. Clinical significance: These findings may help clinicians counsel selected patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer regarding minimally invasive surgical options, particularly where anatomical challenges make conventional laparoscopic dissection difficult. Transanal total mesorectal excision should be considered within experienced centers with appropriate training and governance until stronger comparative evidence with R-TME becomes available.
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.