Background
The quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) is regarded as a fundamental key to the oncological outcome of rectal cancer. Robotic low anterior resection (RLAR) and transanal TME (TaTME) were developed to overcome the technical challenges of conventional open TME. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of RLAR
versus
TaTME for rectal cancer.
Methods
Retrospective data from patients undergoing RLAR or TaTME at a colorectal unit in Singapore were analysed. The primary outcomes were the short-term clinical and pathological results including specimen margins and quality of TME. Secondary outcomes were recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival rates.
Results
A total of 80 patients who underwent either RLAR or TaTME were analysed. The TaTME group had a shorter operating time than the RLAR group (354
versus
481 min respectively;
P
< 0.001) and fewer stays in the high-dependency and intensive care units (38.1
versus
73.7 per cent;
P
= 0.010). There was a higher rate of readmissions at 30 days in the TaTME group (19.0
versus
0 per cent;
P
= 0.006). Specimens from TaTME had greater proximal (14.0
versus
10.0 cm;
P
= 0.045) and distal (2.50
versus
1.65 cm;
P
= 0.021) margins. Patients undergoing TaTME had borderline longer DFS (25.9
versus
15.7 months;
P
= 0.049). Subgroup analysis of patients with (y)pT3–4 tumours showed fewer positive circumferential resection margins with TaTME (0
versus
18.2 per cent;
P
= 0.019) and improved DFS (25.9
versus
15.7 months;
P
= 0.017).
Conclusion
Superior margins were obtained with TaTME, especially in locally advanced tumours, although TaTME was associated with a higher readmission rate compared with RLAR.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.