Transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of technical approaches and clinical outcomes

• Published in: Langenbeck's archives of surgery 2024-05, Vol.409 (1), p.153-153, Article 153
• Main Authors: Stephens, Ian J. B., Byrnes, Kevin G., Burke, John P.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Anastomosis, Surgical - methods; Anastomotic Leak - etiology; Cardiac Surgery; Colonic Pouches - adverse effects; General Surgery; Humans; Length of Stay - statistics & numerical data; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Operative Time; Proctocolectomy, Restorative - adverse effects; Proctocolectomy, Restorative - methods; Systematic Review; Thoracic Surgery; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery - adverse effects; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery - methods; Traumatic Surgery; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Surgery
• ISSN: 1435-2451; 1435-2443; 1435-2451
• DOI: 10.1007/s00423-024-03343-7

Purpose Transanal minimally invasive surgery has theoretical advantages for ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery. We performed a systematic review assessing technical approaches to transanal IPAA (Ta-IPAA) and meta-analysis comparing outcomes to transabdominal (abd-IPAA) approaches. Methods Three databases were searched for articles investigating Ta-IPAA outcomes. Primary outcome was anastomotic leak rate. Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, post operative morbidity, and length of stay (LoS). Staging, plane of dissection, anastomosis, extraction site, operative time, and functional outcomes were also assessed. Results Searches identified 13 studies with 404 unique Ta-IPAA and 563 abd-IPAA patients. Anastomotic leak rates were 6.3% and 8.4% (RD 0, 95% CI -0.066 to 0.065, p = 0.989) and conversion rates 2.5% and 12.5% (RD -0.106, 95% CI -0.155 to -0.057, p = 0.104) for Ta-IPAA and abd-IPAA. Average LoS was one day shorter (MD -1, 95% CI -1.876 to 0.302, p = 0.007). A three-stage approach was most common (47.6%), operative time was 261(± 60) mins, and total mesorectal excision and close rectal dissection were equally used (49.5% vs 50.5%). Functional outcomes were similar. Lack of randomised control trials, case-matched series, and significant study heterogeneity limited analysis, resulting in low to very low certainty of evidence. Conclusions Analysis demonstrated the feasibility and safety of Ta-IPAA with reduced LoS, trend towards less conversions, and comparable anastomotic leak rates and post operative morbidity. Though results are encouraging, they need to be interpreted with heterogeneity and selection bias in mind. Robust randomised clinical trials are warranted to adequately compare ta-IPAA to transabdominal approaches.