Lu F, Tan SG, Zuo J, Jiang HH, Wang JH, Jiang YP. Comparative efficacy analysis of laparoscopic-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision vs laparoscopic transanal mesorectal excision for low-lying rectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Surg 2025; 17(1): 100364 [PMID: 39872764 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i1.100364]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Yu-Ping Jiang, MM, Associate Chief Physician, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Nanhua Hospital Affiliated to University of South China, No. 336 Dongfeng South Road, Hengyang 421002, Hunan Province, China. 15200523234@163.com
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jan 27, 2025; 17(1): 100364 Published online Jan 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i1.100364
Table 1 Comparison of general data, n (%)
Groups
LapTME group (n = 44)
TaTME group (n = 50)
χ2/t
P value
Age (year)
61.61 ± 9.26
62.98 ± 9.37
0.711
0.479
Body mass index (kg/m2)
23.28 ± 2.68
22.95 ± 2.77
0.585
0.560
Tumor diameter (cm)
3.54 ± 0.75
3.48 ± 0.78
0.379
0.706
Tumor distance from the anal margin (cm)
4.82 ± 1.81
4.93 ± 1.81
0.294
0.769
Sex
0.057
0.811
Male
28 (63.64)
33 (66.00)
Female
16 (36.36)
17 (34.00)
American Society of Anesthesiologists grading
3.197
0.074
I
21 (47.73)
32 (64.00)
I
23 (52.27)
18 (36.00)
Tumor–nodes–metastasis staging
0.437
0.509
I
19 (43.18)
25 (50.00)
II
25 (56.82)
25 (50.00)
Pathological type
0.684
0.408
Adenocarcinoma
34 (77.27)
42 (84.00)
Others
10 (22.73)
8 (16.00)
Table 2 Comparison of surgery-related index
Groups
LapTME group (n = 44)
TaTME group (n = 50)
t value
P value
Operation time (minute)
174.95 ± 17.12
196.40 ± 21.52
5.298
< 0.001
Intraoperative blood loss (mL)
64.59 ± 13.01
54.50 ± 9.71
4.292
< 0.001
Anal exhaust time (hour)
42.89 ± 9.49
36.48 ± 11.53
2.919
0.004
First postoperative ambulation (hour)
41.34 ± 9.76
35.64 ± 9.14
2.923
0.004
Intestinal recovery time (hour)
59.84 ± 9.62
53.20 ± 7.93
23.01
< 0.001
Hospitalization time (days)
12.48 ± 3.30
9.94 ± 2.39
4.309
< 0.001
Table 3 Comparison of surgical specimens
Groups
LapTME group (n = 44)
TaTME group (n = 50)
t value
P value
Distal incisal margin length (cm)
2.90 ± 0.78
3.40 ± 0.57
3.577
< 0.001
Specimen length (mm)
10.45 ± 2.37
12.12 ± 2.27
3.486
< 0.001
Number of lymph nodes cleared (n)
11.18 ± 3.22
11.72 ± 3.26
0.806
0.422
Table 4 Comparison of complications, n (%)
Groups
LapTME group (n = 44)
TaTME group (n = 50)
χ2
P value
Anastomotic bleeding
3 (6.82)
2 (4.00)
Anastomotic fistula
1 (2.27)
1 (2.00)
Ileus
3 (6.82)
2 (4.00)
Incision infection
1 (2.27)
0 (0.00)
Total occurrence
8 (18.18)
5 (10.00)
1.315
0.252
Table 5 Comparison of Visual Analogue Scale scores at different time points after surgery
Groups
LapTME group (n = 44)
TaTME group (n = 50)
t value
P value
12 hours after surgery
3.91 ± 1.31
3.20 ± 1.28
2.654
0.009
24 hours after surgery
3.98 ± 1.30
3.18 ± 1.02
3.338
0.001
36 hours after surgery
3.05 ± 1.19
2.44 ± 1.25
2.414
0.012
Citation: Lu F, Tan SG, Zuo J, Jiang HH, Wang JH, Jiang YP. Comparative efficacy analysis of laparoscopic-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision vs laparoscopic transanal mesorectal excision for low-lying rectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Surg 2025; 17(1): 100364