Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision With Delayed Coloanal Anastomosis (TaTME-DCAA) Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LTME) and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision (RTME) for Low Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Short-term Outcomes, Bowel Function, and Cost.

Isaac Seow-En, Jingting Wu, Ivan En-Howe Tan, Yun Zhao, Aaron Wei Ming Seah, Ian Jun Yan Wee, Yvonne Ying-Ru Ng, Emile Kwong-Wei Tan
{"title":"Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision With Delayed Coloanal Anastomosis (TaTME-DCAA) Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LTME) and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision (RTME) for Low Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Short-term Outcomes, Bowel Function, and Cost.","authors":"Isaac Seow-En, Jingting Wu, Ivan En-Howe Tan, Yun Zhao, Aaron Wei Ming Seah, Ian Jun Yan Wee, Yvonne Ying-Ru Ng, Emile Kwong-Wei Tan","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Total mesorectal excision (TME) with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is surgical option for low rectal cancer, replacing conventional immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with bowel diversion. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of transanal TME (TaTME) with DCAA versus laparoscopic TME (LTME) with ICAA versus robotic TME (RTME) with ICAA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of patients who underwent elective TaTME-DCAA between November 2021 and June 2022. Patients were propensity-score matched in a ratio of 1:3 to patients who underwent LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA from January 2019 to December 2020. Outcome measures were histopathologic results, postoperative morbidity, function, and inpatient costs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve patients in the TaTME-DCAA group were compared with 36 patients in the LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA groups each after propensity score matching. Histopathologic results and postoperative morbidity rates were statistically similar. Overall stoma-related complication rates in the ICAA groups were 11%. Median total length of hospital stays for TME plus stoma reversal surgery was similar across all techniques (10 vs. 10 vs. 9 days; P =0.532). Despite a significantly shorter duration of follow-up, bowel function after TaTME-DCAA was comparable to that of LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA. Overall median inpatient costs of TaTME-DCAA were comparable to LTME-ICAA and significantly cheaper than RTME-ICAA ($31,087 vs. $29,927 vs. $36,750; P =0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TaTME with DCAA is a feasible and safe technique compared with other minimally invasive methods of TME, while avoiding bowel diversion and stoma-related complications, as well as comparing favorably in terms of overall hospitalization costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":" ","pages":"54-61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10829900/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001247","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Total mesorectal excision (TME) with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is surgical option for low rectal cancer, replacing conventional immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with bowel diversion. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of transanal TME (TaTME) with DCAA versus laparoscopic TME (LTME) with ICAA versus robotic TME (RTME) with ICAA.

Methods: This was a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of patients who underwent elective TaTME-DCAA between November 2021 and June 2022. Patients were propensity-score matched in a ratio of 1:3 to patients who underwent LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA from January 2019 to December 2020. Outcome measures were histopathologic results, postoperative morbidity, function, and inpatient costs.

Results: Twelve patients in the TaTME-DCAA group were compared with 36 patients in the LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA groups each after propensity score matching. Histopathologic results and postoperative morbidity rates were statistically similar. Overall stoma-related complication rates in the ICAA groups were 11%. Median total length of hospital stays for TME plus stoma reversal surgery was similar across all techniques (10 vs. 10 vs. 9 days; P =0.532). Despite a significantly shorter duration of follow-up, bowel function after TaTME-DCAA was comparable to that of LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA. Overall median inpatient costs of TaTME-DCAA were comparable to LTME-ICAA and significantly cheaper than RTME-ICAA ($31,087 vs. $29,927 vs. $36,750; P =0.002).

Conclusions: TaTME with DCAA is a feasible and safe technique compared with other minimally invasive methods of TME, while avoiding bowel diversion and stoma-related complications, as well as comparing favorably in terms of overall hospitalization costs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经肛直肠全肠系膜切除术伴延迟结肠肛管吻合术(TaTME-DCAA)与腹腔镜全肠系膜切除术(LTME)和机器人全肠系膜切除术(RTME)治疗低位直肠癌:短期预后、肠功能和成本的倾向评分匹配分析
简介:全肠系膜切除(TME)与延迟结肠肛管吻合术(DCAA)是低位直肠癌的手术选择,取代传统的直接结肠肛管吻合术(ICAA)与肠分流。本研究旨在评估经肛门TME (TaTME)联合DCAA与腹腔镜TME (LTME)联合ICAA与机器人TME (RTME)联合ICAA的结果。方法:对2021年11月至2022年6月期间接受选择性TaTME-DCAA治疗的患者进行回顾性倾向评分匹配分析。在2019年1月至2020年12月期间,患者与接受LTME-ICAA和RTME-ICAA的患者以1:3的比例进行倾向评分匹配。结果测量为组织病理学结果、术后发病率、功能和住院费用。结果:倾向评分匹配后,TaTME-DCAA组12例患者与LTME-ICAA组和RTME-ICAA组各36例患者进行比较。组织病理学结果和术后发病率在统计学上相似。ICAA组的总体造口相关并发症发生率为11%。TME加造口逆转手术的中位总住院时间在所有技术中相似(10天vs. 10天vs. 9天;P = 0.532)。尽管随访时间明显缩短,但TaTME-DCAA后的肠功能与LTME-ICAA和RTME-ICAA相当。TaTME-DCAA的总体住院费用中位数与LTME-ICAA相当,且显著低于LTME-ICAA(31,087美元vs 29,927美元vs 36,750美元;P = 0.002)。结论:与其他微创TME方法相比,TaTME联合DCAA是一种可行且安全的技术,可避免肠转移和造口相关并发症,且在总住院费用方面具有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
103
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques is a primary source for peer-reviewed, original articles on the newest techniques and applications in operative laparoscopy and endoscopy. Its Editorial Board includes many of the surgeons who pioneered the use of these revolutionary techniques. The journal provides complete, timely, accurate, practical coverage of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques and procedures; current clinical and basic science research; preoperative and postoperative patient management; complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery; and new developments in instrumentation and technology.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease on Weight Loss Outcomes After One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass. Impact of Specimen Extraction Site and Gallstone Size on Early Postoperative Pain Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study. How I Do It: Simplified Transcystic Antegrade-only Robotic Common Bile Duct Exploration (RCBDE). Single-dock Robotic Bilateral Transversus Abdominis Release: Technique Description and Preliminary Outcomes. Erector Spinae Plane Block for Pain Management in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Left Hemihepatectomy: A Retrospective Propensity Score-matched Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1