4.6 Article

Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has been suspended in Norway

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 107, 期 1, 页码 121-130

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11459

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Medtronic(R)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer has emerged as an alternative to the traditional abdominal approach. However, concerns have been raised about local recurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate local recurrence after TaTME. Secondary aims included postoperative mortality, anastomotic leak and stoma rates. Methods Data on all patients who underwent TaTME were recorded and compared with those from national cohorts in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry (NCCR) and the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery (NoRGast). Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to compare local recurrence. Results In Norway, 157 patients underwent TaTME for rectal cancer between October 2014 and October 2018. Three of seven hospitals abandoned TaTME after a total of five procedures. The local recurrence rate was 12 of 157 (7 center dot 6 per cent); eight local recurrences were multifocal or extensive. The estimated local recurrence rate at 2 center dot 4 years was 11 center dot 6 (95 per cent c.i. 6 center dot 6 to 19 center dot 9) per cent after TaTME compared with 2 center dot 4 (1 center dot 4 to 4 center dot 3) per cent in the NCCR (P < 0 center dot 001). The adjusted hazard ratio was 6 center dot 71 (95 per cent c.i. 2 center dot 94 to 15 center dot 32). Anastomotic leaks resulting in reoperation occurred in 8 center dot 4 per cent of patients in the TaTME cohort compared with 4 center dot 5 per cent in NoRGast (P = 0 center dot 047). Fifty-six patients (35 center dot 7 per cent) had a stoma at latest follow-up; 39 (24 center dot 8 per cent) were permanent. Conclusion Anastomotic leak rates after TaTME were higher than national rates; local recurrence rates and growth patterns were unfavourable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据