Search

The article discusses a study conducted by the Canadian taTME collaboration (CaTaCO) on the outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for abdominoperineal resection (APR) in rectal cancer patients. The authors respond to a comment made by Drs May and Bethune, who criticized the study's methodology. The authors argue that their objective was to compare a specific surgical approach for APR and low anterior resection (LAR), and they believe that the taTME approach may not be ideal for APR surgery. They emphasize the need for further research and caution against declaring any approach as the best for APR without comparing all known treatments. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a novel approach to surgery for rectal cancer. The technique has gained significant popularity in the surgical community due to the promising ability to overcome technical difficulties related to the access of the distal pelvis. Recently, Norwegian surgeons issued a local moratorium related to potential issues with the safety of the procedure. Early adopters of taTME in Canada have recognized the need to create guidelines for its adoption and supervision. The objective of the statement is to provide expert opinion based on the best available evidence and authors' experience. Methods: The procedure has been performed in Canada since 2014 at different institutions. In 2016, the first Canadian taTME congress was held in the city of Toronto, organized by two of the authors. In early 2019, a multicentric collaborative was established [The Canadian taTME expert Collaboration] which aimed at ensuring safe performance and adoption of taTME in Canada. Recently surgeons from 8 major Canadian rectal cancer centers met in the city of Toronto on December 7 of 2019, to discuss and develop a position statement. There in person, meeting was followed by 4 rounds of Delphi methodology. Results: The generated document focused on the need to ensure a unified approach among rectal cancer surgeons across the country considering its technical complexity and potential morbidity. The position statement addressed four domains: surgical setting, surgeons' requirements, patient selection, and quality assurance. Conclusions: Authors agree transanal total mesorectal excision is technically demanding and has a significant risk for morbidity. As of now, there is uncertainty for some of the outcomes. We consider it is possible to safely adopt this operation and obtain adequate results, however for this purpose it is necessary to meet specific requirements in different domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]