4.7 Review

Robotic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (RTaTME): State of the Art

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm11060584

Keywords

rectal cancer; total mesorectal excision (TME); transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME); robotic; robotic transanal total mesorectal excision (RTaTme); transanal surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Total mesorectal excision is the gold standard technique for rectal cancer surgery, while the transanal approach to the mesorectum was introduced to overcome technical difficulties related to distal rectal dissection. Research shows that this approach is most beneficial for patients with mid-low rectal cancer and is safe and feasible, with oncological and functional outcomes comparable to traditional approaches.
Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard technique for the surgical management of rectal cancer. The transanal approach to the mesorectum was introduced to overcome the technical difficulties related to the distal rectal dissection. Since its inception, interest in transanal mesorectal excision has grown exponentially and it appears that the benefits are maximal in patients with mid-low rectal cancer where anatomical and pathological features represent the greatest challenges. Current evidence demonstrates that this approach is safe and feasible, with oncological and functional outcome comparable to conventional approaches, but with specific complications related to the technique. Robotics might potentially simplify the technical steps of distal rectal dissection, with a shorter learning curve compared to the laparoscopic transanal approach, but with higher costs. The objective of this review is to critically analyze the available literature concerning robotic transanal TME in order to define its role in the management of rectal cancer and to depict future perspectives in this field of research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available