Advertisement

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME): are we doing it for the right indication? An assessment of the external validity of published online video resources

  • Balaji MahendranEmail author
  • Anna Caiazzo
  • Mark Coleman
  • Valerio Celentano
Short Communication

Abstract

Background

The steep learning curve for safe introduction of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) highlights the need for mentored training reserved for surgeons with expertise in minimally invasive colorectal surgery and transanal surgery. Video-based education in minimally invasive surgery is considered by surgical trainers as a useful teaching aid to maximize learning. This study aims to systematically assess the availability and quality of online TaTME videos.

Methods

TaTME videos were systematically searched on YouTube.com, Colorectal diseases video channel, WebSurg.com, and AIS channel. Data collected included video characteristics, presence of supplementary educational content, patient details, indication for surgery, different steps of TaTME presented, and surgical outcomes.

Results

Forty-six videos were included with a median of 92 views per month. Nineteen videos (41.3%) reported the age of the participants and 29 patients were male (63%). Body mass index (BMI) was reported in 20 videos (43.5%) with a median of 27 and it indicated obesity (BMI ≥ 30) in 2 cases only. The use of neoadjuvant treatment was reported in 8 cases (17.4%). Eighteen videos (39.1%) reported the distance of the tumor from the anal verge, with a median of 6.4 cm and in 9 out of 18 cases, the tumor distance from the anal verge was 7 cm or higher. Pathological staging was reported in 17 videos (37.0%), with 1 T1, 3 T2, 10 T3, and 3 T4 tumors.

Conclusions

There is considerable interest in TaTME videos. Lack of consensus on reporting of these videos limits the educational value of these resources, which are missing important patient details and postoperative outcomes.

Keywords

Rectal cancer TaTME Transanal total mesorectal excision Surgical videos Surgical training 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Supplementary material

384_2019_3377_MOESM1_ESM.docx (159 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 158 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cassinotti E, Palazzini G, Della Porta M, Grosso I, Boni L (2017) Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME): tips and tricks of a new surgical technique. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg 2:111–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Penna M, Whiteford M, Hompes R, Sylla P (2017) Developing and assessing a cadaveric training model for transanal total mesorectal excision: initial experience in the UK and USA. Color Dis 19:476–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Celentano V, Smart N, McGrath J, Cahill RA, Spinelli A, Obermair A, Hasegawa H, Lal P, Almoudaris AM, Hitchins CR, Pellino G, Browning MG, Ishida T, Luvisetto F, Cingiloglu P, Gash K, Harries R, Harji D, di Candido F, Cassinotti E, McDermott FD, Berry JEA, Battersby NJ, Platt E, Campain NJ, Keeler BD, Boni L, Gupta S, Griffith JP, Acheson AG, Cecil TD, Coleman MG (2018) LAP-VEGaS practice guidelines for reporting of educational videos in laparoscopic surgery: a joint trainers and trainees consensus statement. Ann Surg 268:920–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koedam TWA, van Ramshorst GH, Deijen CL, Elfrink AKE, Meijerink WJHJ, Bonjer HJ, Sietses C, Tuynman JB (2017) Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: effects on patient-reported quality of life and functional outcome. Tech Coloproctol 21:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Celentano V, Smart N, Cahill RA, McGrath JS, Gupta S, Griffith JP, et al. 2018 Use of laparoscopic videos amongst surgical trainees in the United Kingdom. Surgeon.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Celentano V, Browning M, Hitchins C, Giglio MC, Coleman MG (2017) Training value of laparoscopic colorectal videos on the World Wide Web: a pilot study on the educational quality of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy videos. Surg Endosc 31:4496–4504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, Wynn G, Austin R, Warusavitarne J, Moran B, Hanna GB, Mortensen NJ, Tekkis PP, TaTME Registry Collaborative (2017) Transanal total mesorectal excision: international registry results of the first 720 cases. Ann Surg 266:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Velthuis S, Nieuwenhuis DH, Ruijter TEG, Cuesta MA, Bonjer HJ, Sietses C (2014) Transanal versus traditional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma. Surg Endosc 28:3494–3499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Veltcamp Helbach M, Deijen CL, Velthuis S, Bonjer HJ, Tuynman JB, Sietses C (2016) Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma: short-term outcomes and experience after 80 cases. Surg Endosc 30:464–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Araujo SE, Crawshaw B, Mendes CR, Delaney CP (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision: a systematic review of the experimental and clinical evidence. Tech Coloproctol 19:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel SV, Zhang L, Elsolh B, Yu D, Chadi SA (2018) Spin in articles about minimally invasive transanal total mesorectal excision: an assessment of the current literature. Color Dis 21(1):8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Colorectal SurgeryDerriford Hospital, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS TrustPlymouthUK
  2. 2.University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”NaplesItaly
  3. 3.Portsmouth Hospitals NHS TrustPortsmouthUK
  4. 4.University of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations