Editorial Open Access
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Apr 27, 2025; 17(4): 102487
Published online Apr 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i4.102487
Brief insight regarding the use of transanal, laparoscopic, and robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer
Kevan English, Department of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Medicine, Omaha, NE 68198, United States
ORCID number: Kevan English (0009-0006-8893-5696).
Author contributions: English K wrote the original draft, contributed to conceptualization, writing, reviewing, and editing; The author has read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The author reports no relevant conflict of interest for this article.
Open Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Kevan English, MD, Associate Chief Physician, Department of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Medicine, S 42nd & Emile St, Omaha, NE 68198, United States. keenglish@unmc.edu
Received: October 21, 2024
Revised: January 18, 2025
Accepted: February 14, 2025
Published online: April 27, 2025
Processing time: 161 Days and 2.6 Hours

Abstract

In this article, we provide an important commentary on the original study Lu et al, which offers insight into the surgical efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME) in the management of low-lying locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). We focus specifically on the rate of postoperative complications between the two using existing data from the literature. We additionally introduce robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) and look at its postoperative complications relative to the TaTME and LapTME. LARC has been conventionally approached by open surgery. However, minimally invasive techniques have emerged over the past two decades as alternatives to open total mesorectal excision, namely robotic, laparoscopic, and transanal. Each approach has its supporters, but conflicting data on resection outcomes and complications has fueled ongoing debate over the optimal minimally invasive technique for low/mid-LARC. This article aims to extend on the data regarding the use of TaTME and RTME in the treatment of low/mid-LARC and further elaborate on their comparative efficacy relative to LapTME.

Key Words: Colorectal cancer; Total mesorectal excision; Laparoscopic excision; Surgical techniques; Surgical outcomes

Core Tip: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard of treatment for patients with low/mid locally advanced rectal cancer. This article compares the three minimally invasive surgical approaches (robotic, transanal, and laparoscopic TME) and their comparative efficacy relative to each other using the existing data in the literature.



INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a frequently diagnosed malignancy and the third most deadly cancer worldwide[1]. CRC incidence has been steadily increasing globally, particularly in developing countries that have adopted the Western way of life[1,2]. Obesity, high red meat consumption, sedentary lifestyle, tobacco use, and alcohol are significant risk factors for the malignancy[1-3]. Despite simultaneously evolving medical treatment with its rising incidence, surgical resection remains the standard approach for patients with rectal carcinoma[3,4]. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the first-line surgical technique[5]. Open TME was conventionally performed in the mid-1980s; however, minimally invasive techniques have emerged as alternatives over the past two decades[5-7]. These include robotic, laparoscopic, and transanal TME for rectal cancer. There are supporters for each of these techniques in the medical community. However, conflicting evidence regarding specimen quality and complication rate has generated discussions regarding the optimal approach for low/mid locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This article aims to provide data from the existing literature, which suggests that both transanal TME (TaTME) and robotic TME (RTME) are preferred surgical approaches compared to laparoscopic (LapTME) for patients with low/mid-LARC.

EXISITING LITERATURE ON TME FOR TREATMENT OF LOW/MID-LARC

The retrospective study by Lu et al[8] which compared the efficacy of LapTME to TaTME, included a total of 94 patients with low-lying LARC who underwent minimally invasive surgery at a local hospital in China between 2022 and 2024[8]. The patients were selected and divided into TaTME (n = 50) and LapTME (n = 44) groups. Primary outcomes were anal function recovery, levels of surgical stress response, surgery-related indicators, surgical specimens, complication rate, visual analogue score after surgery, and quality of life. Results from the study showed that TaTME, when compared to LapTME, improved anal function, accelerated postoperative recovery, and reduced postoperative stress, showing it to be safer for patients with LARC. Although complication rates between the two (Table 1) were similar, the quality of resection specimens (Table 2) was higher among the TaTME group, contributing to a quicker postoperative recovery.

Table 1 Comparison of complications modified, n (%).
Groups
LapTME (n = 44)
TaTME (n = 50)
P value
Anastomotic fistula1 (2.27)1 (2.00)
Anastomotic bleeding3 (6.82)2 (4.00)
Ileus3 (6.82)2 (4.00)
Incision infection1 (2.27)0 (0.00)
Total occurrence8 (18.18)5 (10.00)0.252
Table 2 Comparison of resection specimens modified.
Groups
LapTME (n = 44)
TaTME (n = 50)
T value
P value
Distal incisal margin (cm)2.90 ± 0.783.40 ± 0.573.577< 0.001
Specimen length (mm)10.45 ± 2.3712.12 ± 2.273.486< 0.001
Total number of lymph nodes cleared (n)11.18 ± 3.2211.72 ± 3.260.8060.422

Another retrospective study by de'Angelis et al[9] compared the efficacy of all three minimally invasive surgical approaches using the European magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Rectal Cancer Surgery III database in patients who underwent TME between 2013 and 2022. A total of 468 patients were included, where 190 (40.6%) received LapTME, 141 (30.1%) received RTME, and 137 (29.3%) patients received TaTME. The primary outcome was the complication rate. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, intraoperative variables (i.e., blood loss, operating time, conversion rate), postoperative variables (i.e., length of hospital stay), and quality of surgical resection. Comparative analysis after matching propensity score showed an elevated rate of postoperative complications for LapTME compared to both TaTME [odds ratio (OR) 2.87, 95%CI: 1.72-4.80] and RTME (OR 1.80, 95%CI: 1.11-2.91). TaTME (0.7%) and RTME (1.4%) were both correlated with smaller conversion rates to open surgery when juxtapose to LapTME (8.8%, P < 0.001). RTME was associated with a smaller rate of anastomotic leakage (grade A) (2%) compared to both LapTME (8.8%) and TaTME (8.1%, P = 0.031). Duration of hospital stay and time to flatus were briefer for patients treated with TaTME (P = 0.001 and 0.003, respectively).

No differences were observed in blood loss, operative time, mortality, intraoperative complications, R0 resection, survival, and readmission. This multicenter cohort study demonstrated that TaTME and RTME improved surgical outcomes in patients with low/mid-LARC compared to LapTME.

DISCUSSION

With the vagueness of the existing literature, this article adds to the existing data, suggesting that the newer minimally invasive techniques (RTME and TaTME) are better treatment options than LapTME for patients with low/mid-LARC. A relatively large cohort study by de'Angelis et al[9] showed that LapTME correlated with higher conversion rates to open surgery, reduced rate of stoma closure, and a higher incidence of postoperative complications compared to both TaTME and RTME. A meta-analysis by Lo Bianco et al[10] demonstrated that TaTME resulted in shorter hospitalizations, high-quality LARC operation, a lower percentage of tumor-positive margins, and a lower incidence of anastomotic complication such as leakage compared to LapTME.

Despite the evidence, LapTME remains the most common minimally invasive approach for LARC[9,11]. A nationwide study in Denmark showed that 48% of all TMEs were done laparoscopically, compared to 29.8% robotically and 13% transanally[12]. This widespread adoption is most likely due to early introduction that stuck within the surgery community, mainly related to surgeon’s preferences and experience[9,13]. The increased use of LapTME is also seen globally compared to TaTME and RTME. It is important to note that the laparoscopic technique is highly challenging and requires skilled surgeons. TaTME and RTME have emerged as valuable alternative options to bypass technical limitations of LapTME and produce better surgical outcomes[8,12-14].

RECENT ADVANCES IN RESEARCH

Several trials, such as the COREAN studies and the MRC-CLASSICA, demonstrated no significant difference between LapTME and open surgery with respect to disease-free survival rates and local recurrence, ultimately favoring the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy in managing LARC in certain patients[15,16]. However, contemporary studies, namely ALaCaRT and ACOSOG Z6051, have failed to show the non-inferiority of laparoscopy compared to open surgery with respect to morbid outcomes, raising questions regarding oncologic safety of LapTME in the treatment of LARC[17,18].

RTME and TaTME were launched as alternative approaches to reduce the technical challenges of LapTME while maintaining high-quality oncologic outcomes. Recent meta-analyses based on several retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial demonstrated similar results concerning oncologic and postoperative outcomes of TaTME compared with LapTME[19-21].

CONCLUSION

The newer minimally invasive techniques, including RTME and TaTME, have been shown to improve surgical outcomes compared to LapTME in treating low/mid-LARC. However, laparoscopy still dominates in the surgical community due to physician preference and experience. The existing literature suggests that RTME and TaTME are, in fact, both better and suitable alternatives to LapTME as they possess better postoperative outcomes.

Footnotes

Provenance and peer review: Invited article; Externally peer reviewed.

Peer-review model: Single blind

Corresponding Author's Membership in Professional Societies: American College of Physicians.

Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology

Country of origin: United States

Peer-review report’s classification

Scientific Quality: Grade A, Grade B, Grade C, Grade C

Novelty: Grade B, Grade B, Grade B, Grade C

Creativity or Innovation: Grade B, Grade B, Grade B, Grade C

Scientific Significance: Grade B, Grade B, Grade B, Grade B

P-Reviewer: Lampridis S; Lian YG; Schiano di Visconte M S-Editor: Li L L-Editor: A P-Editor: Xu ZH

References
1.  Rawla P, Sunkara T, Barsouk A. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. Prz Gastroenterol. 2019;14:89-103.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 444]  [Cited by in RCA: 1001]  [Article Influence: 166.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
2.  Hadjipetrou A, Anyfantakis D, Galanakis CG, Kastanakis M, Kastanakis S. Colorectal cancer, screening and primary care: A mini literature review. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:6049-6058.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 70]  [Cited by in RCA: 67]  [Article Influence: 8.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
3.  Lewandowska A, Rudzki G, Lewandowski T, Stryjkowska-Góra A, Rudzki S. Risk Factors for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Control. 2022;29:10732748211056692.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 41]  [Cited by in RCA: 85]  [Article Influence: 28.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
4.  Guerrieri M, Gesuita R, Ghiselli R, Lezoche G, Budassi A, Baldarelli M. Treatment of rectal cancer by transanal endoscopic microsurgery: experience with 425 patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:9556-9563.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 41]  [Cited by in RCA: 47]  [Article Influence: 4.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
5.  Phang PT. Total mesorectal excision: technical aspects. Can J Surg. 2004;47:130-137.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
6.  Young M, Pigazzi A. Total mesorectal excision: open, laparoscopic or robotic. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2014;203:47-55.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 19]  [Cited by in RCA: 19]  [Article Influence: 1.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
7.  Ng JY, Chen CC. Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: it's come a long way and here to stay. Ann Coloproctol. 2022;38:283-289.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in RCA: 8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
8.  Lu F, Tan SG, Zuo J, Jiang HH, Wang JH, Jiang YP. Comparative efficacy analysis of laparoscopic-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision vs laparoscopic transanal mesorectal excision for low-lying rectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2025;17:100364.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
9.  de'Angelis N, Marchegiani F, Martínez-Pérez A, Biondi A, Pucciarelli S, Schena CA, Pellino G, Kraft M, van Lieshout AS, Morelli L, Valverde A, Lupinacci RM, Gómez-Abril SA, Persiani R, Tuynman JB, Espin-Basany E, Ris F; European MRI and Rectal Cancer Surgery (EuMaRCS) Study Group. Robotic, transanal, and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for locally advanced mid/low rectal cancer: European multicentre, propensity score-matched study. BJS Open. 2024;8:zrae044.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
10.  Lo Bianco S, Lanzafame K, Piazza CD, Piazza VG, Provenzano D, Piazza D. Total mesorectal excision laparoscopic versus transanal approach for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;74:103260.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
11.  Kang L, Zeng Z, Luo S, Zhang H, Wang Q, Ren M, Wu M, Tong W, Xu Q, Xiao Y, Wu A, Chen YG, Feng B, Shen Z, Huang L, Zhang X, Zheng M, Wang JP. Transanal vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a multicenter randomized phase III clinical trial (TaLaR trial) protocol. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2021;9:71-76.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4]  [Cited by in RCA: 4]  [Article Influence: 0.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
12.  Ose I, Perdawood SK. A nationwide comparison of short-term outcomes after transanal, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision. Colorectal Dis. 2021;23:2671-2680.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4]  [Cited by in RCA: 3]  [Article Influence: 0.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
13.  Yi Chi Z, Gang O, Xiao Li F, Ya L, Zhijun Z, Yong Gang D, Dan R, Xin L, Yang L, Peng Z, Yi L, Dong L, De Chun Z. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024;103:e36859.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
14.  Gloor S, Pozza G, Troller R, Wehrli M, Adamina M. Surgical Outcomes, Long-Term Recurrence Rate, and Resource Utilization in a Prospective Cohort of 165 Patients Treated by Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Distal Rectal Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15:1190.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in RCA: 5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
15.  Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM; MRC CLASICC trial group. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718-1726.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 2360]  [Cited by in RCA: 2266]  [Article Influence: 113.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
16.  Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, Nam BH, Choi HS, Kim DW, Lim SB, Lee TG, Kim DY, Kim JS, Chang HJ, Lee HS, Kim SY, Jung KH, Hong YS, Kim JH, Sohn DK, Kim DH, Oh JH. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:637-645.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 687]  [Cited by in RCA: 738]  [Article Influence: 49.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
17.  Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George V, Abbas M, Peters WR Jr, Maun D, Chang G, Herline A, Fichera A, Mutch M, Wexner S, Whiteford M, Marks J, Birnbaum E, Margolin D, Larson D, Marcello P, Posner M, Read T, Monson J, Wren SM, Pisters PW, Nelson H. Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1346-1355.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 755]  [Cited by in RCA: 805]  [Article Influence: 80.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
18.  Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, Davies L, Wilson K, Hague W, Simes J; ALaCaRT Investigators. Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection on Pathological Outcomes in Rectal Cancer: The ALaCaRT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1356-1363.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 708]  [Cited by in RCA: 746]  [Article Influence: 74.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
19.  Denost Q, Adam JP, Rullier A, Buscail E, Laurent C, Rullier E. Perineal transanal approach: a new standard for laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer, a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260:993-999.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 126]  [Cited by in RCA: 127]  [Article Influence: 12.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
20.  Zhang X, Gao Y, Dai X, Zhang H, Shang Z, Cai X, Shen T, Cheng X, Yu K, Li Y. Short- and long-term outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-to-low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:972-985.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 24]  [Cited by in RCA: 16]  [Article Influence: 2.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
21.  Lei P, Ruan Y, Yang X, Fang J, Chen T. Trans-anal or trans-abdominal total mesorectal excision? A systematic review and meta-analysis of recent comparative studies on perioperative outcomes and pathological result. Int J Surg. 2018;60:113-119.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 8]  [Cited by in RCA: 8]  [Article Influence: 1.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]