3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Functional complaints and quality of life after transanal total mesorectal excision: a meta‐analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Total mesorectal excision (TME) gives excellent oncological results in rectal cancer treatment, but patients may experience functional problems. A novel approach to performing TME is by single‐port transanal minimally invasive surgery. This systematic review evaluated the functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal and laparoscopic TME.

          Methods

          A comprehensive search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and the trial registers was conducted in May 2019. PRISMA guidelines were used. Data for meta‐analysis were pooled using a random‐effects model.

          Results

          A total of 11 660 studies were identified, from which 14 studies and six conference abstracts involving 846 patients (599 transanal TME, 247 laparoscopic TME) were included. A substantial number of patients experienced functional problems consistent with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Meta‐analysis found no significant difference in major LARS between the two approaches (risk ratio 1·13, 95 per cent c.i. 0·94 to 1·35; P = 0·18). However, major heterogeneity was present in the studies together with poor reporting of functional baseline assessment.

          Conclusion

          No differences in function were observed between transanal and laparoscopic TME.

          Abstract

          A novel surgical technique for total mesorectal excision (TME) is single‐port transanal minimally invasive surgery. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and compare them with those of laparoscopic TME (LapTME). No differences between TaTME and LapTME were seen in terms of impaired functioning and reduced quality of life after rectal cancer surgery. However, major heterogeneity was present in the studies together with poor reporting of functional baseline assessment.

          Comparable function

          Translated abstract

          Antecedentes

          La escisión total del mesorrecto ( total mesorectal excision, TME) proporciona excelentes resultados oncológicos en el tratamiento del cáncer de recto, pero los pacientes pueden presentar trastornos funcionales. Un abordaje novedoso para realizar la TME es mediante cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva de puerto único. En esta revisión sistemática se evaluaron los resultados funcionales y la calidad de vida después de TME transanal (TaTME) y TME laparoscópica (LapTME).

          Métodos

          En mayo de 2019 se realizó una búsqueda exhaustiva en las bases de datos de Pubmed, Biblioteca Cochrane, EMBASE y en los registros de ensayos clínicos. Se utilizaron las guías PRISMA. Los datos para el metaanálisis se agruparon utilizando un modelo de efectos aleatorios.

          Resultados

          Se identificaron un total de 11.660 estudios, de los cuales se incluyeron 14 estudios y 6 resúmenes de congresos con 846 pacientes (599 TaTME/247 LapTME). Un número sustancial de pacientes presentó trastornos funcionales consistentes con el síndrome de resección anterior baja ( low anterior resection syndrome, LARS). El metaanálisis no encontró diferencias significativas en los porcentajes de LARS grave entre los dos abordajes (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 1,13; i.c. del 95% 0,94‐1,35; P = 0,18). Sin embargo, los estudios globalmente presentaron una gran heterogeneidad, así como una deficiente información sobre la evaluación funcional basal.

          Conclusión

          No se observaron diferencias en la función entre TaTME y LapTME.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial.

          The safety and short-term efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy has not been demonstrated. The aim of the randomised Comparison of Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low REctal cancer After Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN) trial was to compare open surgery with laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Between April 4, 2006, and Aug 26, 2009, patients with cT3N0-2 mid or low rectal cancer without distant metastasis after preoperative chemoradiotherapy were enrolled at three tertiary-referral hospitals. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive either open surgery (n=170) or laparoscopic surgery (n=170), stratified according to sex and preoperative chemotherapy regimen. Short-term outcomes assessed were involvement of the circumferential resection margin, macroscopic quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen, number of harvested lymph nodes, recovery of bowel function, perioperative morbidity, postoperative pain, and quality of life. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Patients continue to be followed up for the primary outcome (3-year disease-free survival). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00470951. Two patients (1.2%) in the laparoscopic group were converted to open surgery, but were included in the laparoscopic group for analyses. Estimated blood loss was less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (median 217.5 mL [150.0-400.0] in the open group vs 200.0 mL [100.0-300.0] in the laparoscopic group, p=0.006), although surgery time was longer in the laparoscopic group (mean 244.9 min [SD 75.4] vs 197.0 min [62.9], p<0.0001). Involvement of the circumferential resection margin, macroscopic quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen, number of harvested lymph nodes, and perioperative morbidity did not differ between the two groups. The laparoscopic surgery group showed earlier recovery of bowel function than the open surgery group (time to pass first flatus, median 38.5 h [23.0-53.0] vs 60.0 h [43.0-73.0], p<0.0001; time to resume a normal diet, 85.0 h [66.0-95.0] vs 93.0 h [86.0-121.0], p<0.0001; time to first defecation, 96.5 h [70.0-125.0] vs 123 h [94.0-156.0], p<0.0001). The total amount of morphine used was less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (median 107.2 mg [80.0-150.0] vs 156.9 mg [117.0-185.2], p<0.0001). 3 months after proctectomy or ileostomy takedown, the laparoscopic group showed better physical functioning score than the open group (0.501 [n=122] vs -4.970 [n=128], p=0.0073), less fatigue (-5.659 [n=122] vs 0.098 [n=129], p=0.0206), and fewer micturition (-2.583 [n=122] vs 4.725 [n=129], p=0.0002), gastrointestinal (-0.400 [n=122] vs 4.331 [n=129], p=0.0102), and defecation problems (0.535 [n=103] vs 5.327 [n=99], p=0.0184) in repeated measures analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline values. Laparoscopic surgery after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for mid or low rectal cancer is safe and has short-term benefits compared with open surgery; the quality of oncological resection was equivalent. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

            Compared with open resection, laparoscopic resection of rectal cancers is associated with improved short-term outcomes, but high-level evidence showing similar long-term outcomes is scarce. We aimed to compare survival outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for patients with mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              An overview of 25 years of incidence, treatment and outcome of colorectal cancer patients

              Regarding the continuous changes in the diagnostic process and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC), it is important to evaluate long‐term trends which are relevant in giving direction for further research and innovations in cancer patient care. The aim of this study was to analyze developments in incidence, treatment and survival for patients diagnosed with CRC in the Netherlands. For this population‐based retrospective cohort study, all patients diagnosed with CRC between 1989 and 2014 in the Netherlands were identified using data of the nationwide population‐based Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 267,765), with follow‐up until January 1, 2016. Analyses were performed for trends in incidence, mortality, stage distribution, treatment and relative survival measured from the time of diagnosis. The incidence of both colon and rectal cancer has risen. The use of postoperative chemotherapy for Stage III colon cancer increased (14–60%), as well as the use of preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy for rectal cancer (2–66%). The administration of systemic therapy and metastasectomy increased for Stage IV disease patients. The 5‐year relative survival increased significantly from 53 to 62% for colon cancer and from 51 to 65% for rectal cancer. Ongoing advancements in treatment, and also improvement in other factors in the care of CRC patients—such as diagnostics, dedicated surgery and pre‐ and postoperative care—lead to a continuous improvement in the relative survival of CRC patients. The increasing incidence of CRC favors the implementation of the screening program, of which the effects should be monitored closely.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                joost.vanderheijden@radboudumc.nl
                Journal
                Br J Surg
                Br J Surg
                10.1002/(ISSN)1365-2168
                BJS
                The British Journal of Surgery
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (Chichester, UK )
                0007-1323
                1365-2168
                10 March 2020
                April 2020
                : 107
                : 5 ( doiID: 10.1002/bjs.v107.5 )
                : 489-498
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Surgery Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen Netherlands
                [ 2 ] Department of Surgery Gelderse Vallei Hospital Ede Netherlands
                [ 3 ] Department of Surgery Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc Amsterdam Netherlands
                [ 4 ] Department of Surgery Maxima Medical Centre Veldhoven Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Dr J. A. G. van der Heijden, Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (e‐mail: joost.vanderheijden@ 123456radboudumc.nl )
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9827-6915
                Article
                BJS11566
                10.1002/bjs.11566
                7155085
                32154594
                0c6d3cf9-9202-47b5-a52b-7c643b6833dd
                © 2020 BJS Society Ltd published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 04 December 2019
                : 24 January 2020
                : 03 February 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 10, Words: 5003
                Categories
                Lower GI
                Systematic Review
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                April 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.8.0 mode:remove_FC converted:14.04.2020

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article