Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) in a single-surgeon setting: refinements of the technique during the learning phase

• Published in: Techniques in coloproctology 2018-06, Vol.22 (6), p.433-443
• Main Authors: Caycedo-Marulanda, A., Ma, G., Jiang, H. Y.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Aged; Clinical Competence - statistics & numerical data; Colorectal cancer; Colorectal Surgery; Female; Gastroenterology; Humans; Learning Curve; Male; Margins of Excision; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Operative Time; Original Article; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Proctology; Prospective Studies; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery; Rectum - surgery; Surgeons; Surgeons - education; Surgeons - statistics & numerical data; Surgery; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery - education; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery - methods; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1123-6337; 1128-045X
• DOI: 10.1007/s10151-018-1812-3

Background Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a safe and effective technique. We have progressively developed a systematic approach in the single-surgeon setting. The aim of this study was to compare our early vs late single-surgeon taTME experience as well as present the technical and logistical modifications that were crucial to achieve successful implementation of a taTME program. Methods Review of prospectively collected data on 27 patients who had taTME in June 2015–September 2016 (early cohort) was included and compared with 43 patients who underwent taTME in October 2016–September 2017 (late cohort). Procedures were performed by a single-surgeon team at Health Sciences North (Sudbury, Ontario, Canada). Inclusion criteria were T1–3 or downstaged T4 mid- and low-rectal lesions. Cases of non-neoplastic disease were excluded. Outcomes assessed included mesorectal integrity, margin status, operative time, complications, morbidity, length of stay and 30-day readmission. Results A total of 70 cases were included. Patients were divided into early (27 patients, 14 males; mean age 60.74 ± 9.77 years) and late (43 patients, 29 males; mean age 63.48 ± 10.85 years) cohorts. During the early phase, procedural modifications including regular takedown of the splenic flexure, intra-corporeal division of the mesentery, liberal use of a Pfannenstiel incision for extraction, abundant washing of the surgical field and regular use of the ICG technology were progressively introduced. There was no mortality nor statistically significant difference between the early and late cohort in terms of morbidity (33.3 vs 39.4% p  = 0.727), anastomotic leak (14.8 vs 4.6% p  = 0.19), operating time (5.05 ± 1.26 vs 4.96 ± 1.14 h p  = 0.755), length of stay (4.0 ± 2.54 vs 4.81 ± 3.63 days p  = 0.394) and CRM negative margin (96.3 vs. 97.7% p  = 0.999), and no incomplete specimens were obtained on either cohort. Conclusions This study confirms the safety and effectiveness of single-surgeon implementation of taTME technique. Technical challenges experienced in this setting were not obstacles for further refinement and to establish a tendency towards better outcomes. Overcoming technical challenges is possible, familiarity with taTME is slow yet progressive, and improvement tends to occur with experience.