3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Transanal mesorectal excision: early outcomes in Australia and New Zealand

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) aims to overcome some of the technical challenges faced when operating on mid and low rectal cancers. Specimen quality has been confirmed previously, but recent concerns have been raised about oncological safety. This multicentre prospective study aimed to evaluate the safety of taTME among early adopters in Australia and New Zealand.

          Methods

          Data from all consecutive patients who had taTME for rectal cancer from July 2014 to February 2020 at six tertiary referral centres in Australasia were recorded and analysed.

          Results

          A total of 308 patients of median age of 64 years underwent taTME. Some 75.6 per cent of patients were men, and the median BMI was 26.8 kg/m2. The median distance of tumour from anal verge was 7 cm. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was administered to 57.8 per cent of patients. The anastomotic leak rate was 8.1 per cent and there was no mortality within 30 days of surgery. Pathological examination found a complete mesorectum in 295 patients (95.8 per cent), a near-complete mesorectum in seven patients (2.3 per cent), and an incomplete mesorectum in six patients (1.9 per cent). The circumferential resection margin and distal resection margin was involved in nine patients (2.9 per cent), and two patients (0.6 per cent) respectively. Over a median follow-up of 22 months, the local recurrence rate was 1.9 per cent and median time to local recurrence was 30.5 months.

          Conclusion

          This study showed that, with appropriate training and supervision, skilled minimally invasive rectal cancer surgeons can perform taTME with similar pathological and oncological results to open and laparoscopic surgery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

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

          Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

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

            Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer.

            Anastomotic leakage represents a major complication after anterior resection of the rectum. The incidence of anastomotic leakage varies considerably among clinical studies in part owing to the lack of a standardized definition of this complication. The aim of the present article was to propose a definition and severity grading of anastomotic leakage after anterior rectal resection. After a literature review a consensus definition and severity grading of anastomotic leakage was developed within the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Anastomotic leakage should be defined as a defect of the intestinal wall at the anastomotic site (including suture and staple lines of neorectal reservoirs) leading to a communication between the intra- and extraluminal compartments. Severity of anastomotic leakage should be graded according to the impact on clinical management. Grade A anastomotic leakage results in no change in patients' management, whereas grade B leakage requires active therapeutic intervention but is manageable without re-laparotomy. Grade C anastomotic leakage requires re-laparotomy. The proposed definition and clinical grading is applicable easily in the setting of clinical studies. It should be applied in future reports to facilitate valid comparison of the results of different studies. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer.

              Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is widely used. However, robust evidence to conclude that laparoscopic surgery and open surgery have similar outcomes in rectal cancer is lacking. A trial was designed to compare 3-year rates of cancer recurrence in the pelvic or perineal area (locoregional recurrence) and survival after laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                British Journal of Surgery
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0007-1323
                1365-2168
                February 01 2021
                March 12 2021
                January 09 2021
                February 01 2021
                March 12 2021
                January 09 2021
                : 108
                : 2
                : 214-219
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geelong, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
                [2 ]Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [3 ]Department of Surgery, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [4 ]Department of Surgery, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia
                [5 ]Department of Surgery, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
                [6 ]Department of Surgery, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
                Article
                10.1093/bjs/znaa098
                33711138
                64d21e8e-75e0-4359-b8a1-a46d7d9744ac
                © 2021

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article