Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System
INTRODUCTION:
Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short-term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally.
METHODS:
A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak.
RESULTS:
Of 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02-2.48, P = 0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10-7.34, P = 0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non-transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed-effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77-1.97, P = 0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79-5.62, P = 0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55-4.77, P < 0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52-3.44, P < 0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%.
CONCLUSION:
This contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results.
An international multicentre prospective audit of elective rectal cancer surgery; operative approach versus outcome, including transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME)
INTRODUCTION:
Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short-term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally.
METHODS:
A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak.
RESULTS:
Of 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02-2.48, P = 0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10-7.34, P = 0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non-transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed-effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77-1.97, P = 0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79-5.62, P = 0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55-4.77, P < 0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52-3.44, P < 0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%.
CONCLUSION:
This contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1679189
Citazioni
16
69
49
social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2023-2025 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione.
La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e presenta gli indicatori calcolati alla data indicata sul report. Si ricorda che in sede di domanda ASN presso il MIUR gli indicatori saranno invece calcolati a partire dal 1° gennaio rispettivamente del quinto/decimo/quindicesimo anno precedente la scadenza del quadrimestre di presentazione della domanda (art 2 del DM 598/2018).
In questa simulazione pertanto il valore degli indicatori potrà differire da quello conteggiato all’atto della domanda ASN effettuata presso il MIUR a seguito di:
Correzioni imputabili a eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori.
Presenza di eventuali errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS
Variabilità nel tempo dei valori citazionali (per i settori bibliometrici)
Variabilità della finestra temporale considerata in funzione della sessione di domanda ASN a cui si partecipa.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle regole riportate nel DM 598/2018 e dell'allegata Tabella A e delle specifiche definite all'interno del Focus Group Cineca relativo al modulo IRIS ER. Il Cineca non si assume alcuna responsabilità in merito all'uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione.