ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Association of the transanal approach with the accuracy of distal margin achievement in rectal cancer surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequate distal margin (DM) achievement is essential in oncological rectal cancer surgery. In conventional transabdominal surgery, however, the intraluminal location of the distal tumor edge must be translated to an externally applied transection line; this potentially causes discrepancies between intended and achieved margins. This study aimed to evaluate the discrepancy between the planned intraoperative DM and the margin achieved in rectal cancer resection, identify factors associated with DM discrepancy, and evaluate the association between the transanal approach, specifically transanal total mesorectal excision, and DM accuracy.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 171 consecutive patients who underwent curative-intent laparoscopic or robot-assisted low anterior resection (LAR) or intersphincteric resection between July 2019 and June 2025. The intended DM in operative records was compared with the pathological DM measured in formalin-fixed specimens. The primary outcome was the absolute DM discrepancy. As the distribution was skewed, adjusted median regression was performed using the transanal approach, intended DM, tumor distance from the anal verge, maximum tumor size, surgical platform, and surgical era as covariates.
resultsThe median absolute DM discrepancy was 4.0 mm and was smaller with than without the transanal approach (3.0 vs. 6.0 mm; p < 0.001). After adjustment, transanal approach omission was associated with greater absolute DM discrepancy (β, 3.938 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.848-6.027; p < 0.001). Greater maximum tumor size was also associated with greater discrepancy (β per 1-mm increase, 0.075 mm; 95% CI 0.040-0.110; p < 0.001). This association remained consistent in sensitivity analyses restricted to LAR and after exclusion of scar-based pathological DM measurements.
conclusionsThe transanal approach was associated with a smaller discrepancy between intended and achieved DMs after adjustment for tumor characteristics, surgical platform, and surgical era. Assessing the distal tumor edge and intended transection line within the same transanal operative field may facilitate more precise DM control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42864471What 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.