Background There is no consensus regarding the gold standard technique for rectal cancer as Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) may be safely performed either by open or minimally invasive surgery. The laparoscopic approach, however, may carry technical difficulties. For this reason, a novel technique has emerged in the last decade combining a dual laparoscopic dissection (abdominal and transanal) to perform the TME technique (TaTME). When focusing on oncological outcomes, there is a lack of literature regarding mid-long term results. The aim of this study is to evaluate the mid-term oncological impact of TaTME for treating rectal cancer. Methods A prospective multicentre study was performed in four tertiary centres including consecutive patients who underwent TaTME for mid-low rectal cancer by the same group of experienced surgeons. The analysed data included pathological results on the quality of TME and mid-term oncological outcomes. Results In total, 173 patients were included throughout a study period of 6 years. Our series included 70% males and 68% of patients with neoadjuvant treatments. The median follow-up was 23 [15-37.5] months. Regarding pathological results, a complete TME was achieved in 72.8%, while circumferential and distal margins were affected in 1.4 and 1.1%, respectively. Five patients developed local recurrences (3%) and 8.1% presented distant disease during the follow-up. The 2-year diseasefree survival and the overall survival rates were 88% and 95%, respectively. Conclusions There is currently a lack of evidence in the literature regarding TaTME and oncological outcomes with no data available from randomized clinical trials. In the meantime, the reported results from different multicentre series are controversial. This study showed positive mid-term outcomes at 2 years of follow-up and supported notable oncological outcomes with TaTME. However, it must be emphasized that previous experience in minimally invasive and transanal surgeries is essential for surgeons before intending to perform TaTME.

No abstract

In our experience, ERAS should be implemented without reservations in elderly patients expecting the same goals and benefits as with other age groups. Barriers in achieving a high compliance rate are common and will require a great effort in patient's education, an intensive perioperative care, and sometimes a change in the surgeons' practice.

To compare short-term postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) after the use of robotic and laparoscopic staplers. Over a 5-year period, 196 patients were divided into 2 groups according to the use of laparoscopic (LS) or robotic stapler (RS). Patient demographics and postoperative complications were compared. A total of 145 (74%) robotic TME were performed using the LS and 51 (26%) the RS. No conversions to laparoscopy or laparotomy were observed, in either group. Transection of the rectum using one or two firings was achieved in a higher proportion of RS cases (91%) compared with LS cases (60%; p < 0.001). The anastomotic leakage (AL) rate was 4% in the RS group vs. 7% in the LS group (p > 0.05). However, when three or more firings were needed for the rectal transection, the risk of AL increased (3.4% with ≤ 2 firings vs. 10.7% with ≥ 3 firings, p = 0.006). Our data confirm that multiple stapler firings for rectal transection have a major impact on AL. The robotic stapler simplifies the transaction, so that rectal division requires fewer stapler firings, with a potential reduction in the incidence of AL.

Robotic surgery can overcome some limitations of Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (L-TME), improving the quality of the surgery. We aim to compare the medium-term oncological outcomes of L-TME vs. Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision (R-TME) for rectal cancer. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who underwent L-TME or R-TME between 2011-2017. Patients presenting with metastatic disease or R1 resection were excluded. From a total of 680 patients, 136 cases of R-TME were matched based on age, gender, stage and time of follow-up with an equal number of patients who underwent L-TME. We compared 3-year disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Major complications were lower in the robotic group (13.2% vs. 22.8%, p=0.04), highlighting the anastomotic leakage rate (7.4% vs. 16.9%, p=0.01). The 3-year DFS rate for all stages was 69% for L-TME and 84% for R-TME (p=0.02). For disease stage III, 3-year DFS was significantly higher in the R-TME group. OS was also significantly superior in the robotic group for every stage, reaching 86% in stage III. In the multivariate analysis, R-TME was a significant positive prognostic factor for distant metastasis (OR 0.2 95%CI 0.1, 0.6, p=0.001) and OS (OR 0.2 95%CI 0.07, 0.4, p=0.000). Moreover, major complications were also found to have a negative impact on OS (OR 8.3 95% CI 3.2, 21.6, p=0.000). CONCLUSION R-TME for rectal cancer can achieve better oncological outcomes compared to L-TME, especially in stage III rectal cancers. However, a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm these findings.