Chen G-Y, Liao C-K, You J-F, Lai C-C, Huang S-H
Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, No. 5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist., Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, No. 259, Wenhua 1St Road, Guishan Dist., Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Tech Coloproctol. 2025 Aug 18;29(1):163. doi: 10.1007/s10151-025-03204-5.
Total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the oncologic standard for rectal cancer surgery; however, technical challenges persist in the minimally invasive treatment of low rectal cancer. Transanal TME (TaTME) and robotic TME were developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic TME in confined pelvic spaces. Despite promising results, comparative evidence among these approaches remains limited and heterogeneous. To address this gap, we conducted a propensity score-matched analysis to evaluate and compare the clinical and oncologic outcomes of TaTME, robotic TME, and laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer treated at a high-volume tertiary center.
This retrospective study included patients with rectal cancer who underwent restorative proctectomy between 2015 and 2021. Propensity score matching was used to balance demographic, clinical, and treatment variables across the three groups. Outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical methods.
After matching, 240 patients were included (40 TaTME, 40 robotic TME, and 160 laparoscopic TME). TaTME and robotic TME demonstrated significantly lower overall complication rates than laparoscopic TME (27.5% versus 20.0% versus 39.4%, p = 0.033). The circumferential resection margin positivity rate was highest in the laparoscopic group (10.6% versus 0% versus 2.5%, p = 0.031). However, 5-year overall survival (82.5% versus 85.0% versus 88.1%, p = 0.251), disease-free survival (75.0% versus 72.5% versus 73.8%, p = 0.772), local recurrence (17.5% versus 12.5% versus 24.7%, p = 0.488), and distal metastasis (17.5% versus 22.5% versus 25.2%, p = 0.694) did not significantly differ among groups.
All three minimally invasive TME techniques achieved comparable long-term oncologic outcomes. Surgical approach should be tailored on the basis of surgeon expertise and patient-specific factors.
全直肠系膜切除术(TME)仍然是直肠癌手术的肿瘤学标准;然而,低位直肠癌的微创治疗仍存在技术挑战。经肛门全直肠系膜切除术(TaTME)和机器人辅助全直肠系膜切除术是为克服腹腔镜TME在盆腔狭窄空间中的局限性而开发的。尽管取得了令人鼓舞的结果,但这些方法之间的比较证据仍然有限且参差不齐。为填补这一空白,我们进行了倾向评分匹配分析,以评估和比较在一家大型三级中心接受治疗的直肠癌患者中TaTME、机器人辅助TME和腹腔镜TME的临床和肿瘤学结局。
这项回顾性研究纳入了2015年至2021年间接受根治性直肠切除术的直肠癌患者。采用倾向评分匹配来平衡三组患者的人口统计学、临床和治疗变量。使用标准统计方法分析结局。
匹配后,共纳入240例患者(40例TaTME、40例机器人辅助TME和160例腹腔镜TME)。TaTME和机器人辅助TME的总体并发症发生率显著低于腹腔镜TME(27.5%对20.0%对39.4%,p = 0.033)。腹腔镜组的环周切缘阳性率最高(10.6%对0%对2.5%,p = 0.031)。然而,5年总生存率(82.5%对85.0%对88.1%,p = 0.251)、无病生存率(75.0%对72.5%对73.8%,p = 0.772)、局部复发率(17.5%对12.5%对24.7%,p = 0.488)和远处转移率(17.5%对22.5%对25.2%,p = 0.694)在各组之间无显著差异。
所有三种微创TME技术均取得了相当的长期肿瘤学结局。手术方式应根据外科医生的专业技能和患者的具体因素进行调整。