Establishing the learning curve of transanal minimally invasive surgery for local excision of rectal neoplasms
Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is an endoscopic operating platform for local excision of rectal neoplasms. However, it may be technically demanding, and its learning curve has yet to be adequately defined. The objective of this study was to determine the number of TAMIS procedures for the local excision of rectal neoplasm required to reach proficiency.
Methods and procedures
All TAMIS cases performed from 07/2009 to 12/2016 at a single high-volume tertiary care institution for local excision of benign and malignant rectal neoplasia were identified from a prospective database. A cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was performed to determine the number of cases required to reach proficiency. The main proficiency outcome was rate of margin positivity (R1 resection). The acceptable and unacceptable R1 rates were defined as the R1 rate of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM—10%) and traditional transanal excision (TAE—26%), which was obtained from previously published meta-analyses. Comparisons of patient, tumor, and operative characteristics before and after TAMIS proficiency were performed.
A total of 254 TAMIS procedures were included in this study. The overall R1 resection rate was 7%. The indication for TAMIS was malignancy in 57%. CUSUM analysis reported that TAMIS reached an acceptable R1 rate between 14 and 24 cases. Moving average plots also showed that the mean operative times stabilized by proficiency gain. The mean lesion size was larger after proficiency gain (3.0 cm (SD 1.5) vs. 2.3 cm (SD 1.3), p = 0.008). All other patient, tumor, and operative characteristics were similar before and after proficiency gain.
TAMIS for local excision of rectal neoplasms is a complex procedure that requires a minimum of 14–24 cases to reach an acceptable R1 resection rate and lower operative duration.
KeywordsTransanal minimally invasive surgery Local excision Learning curve
Compliance with ethical standards
deBeche-Adams reports consultant’s fees from Applied Medical. Atallah reports consultant’s fees from Applied Medical, THD American, Medicaroid, and Conmed. Albert reports consultant’s fees from Applied Medical, Stryker, and Conmed, and stock options from Applied Medical. Mancuso reports consultant’s fees from Applied Medical and Mallinckrodt. Lee, Kelly, Keller, Nassif, and Monson have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 16.Atallah S, Martin-Perez B, Albert M, deBeche-Adams T, Nassif G, Hunter L, Larach S (2014) Transanal minimally invasive surgery for total mesorectal excision (TAMIS-TME): results and experience with the first 20 patients undergoing curative-intent rectal cancer surgery at a single institution. Tech Coloproctol 18:473–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Lee L, Burke JP, deBeche-Adams T, Nassif G, Martin-Perez B, Monson JR, Albert MR, Atallah SB (2017) Transanal minimally invasive surgery for local excision of benign and malignant rectal neoplasia: outcomes from 200 consecutive cases with midterm follow up. Ann Surg. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002190 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Langer C, Liersch T, Suss M, Siemer A, Markus P, Ghadimi BM, Fuzesi L, Becker H (2003) Surgical cure for early rectal carcinoma and large adenoma: transanal endoscopic microsurgery (using ultrasound or electrosurgery) compared to conventional local and radical resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 18:222–229PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Diaz-Pavon JM, de la Portilla de Juan F, Prendes-Sillero E, Dussort HC, Padillo J (2013) Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:815-821Google Scholar
- 40.Barrie J, Jayne DG, Wright J, Murray CJ, Collinson FJ, Pavitt SH (2014) Attaining surgical competency and its implications in surgical clinical trial design: a systematic review of the learning curve in laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 21:829–840CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.Arezzo A, Passera R, Saito Y, Sakamoto T, Kobayashi N, Sakamoto N, Yoshida N, Naito Y, Fujishiro M, Niimi K, Ohya T, Ohata K, Okamura S, Iizuka S, Takeuchi Y, Uedo N, Fusaroli P, Bonino MA, Verra M, Morino M (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery for large noninvasive rectal lesions. Surg Endosc 28:427–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 48.Bach SP, Hill J, Monson JR, Simson JN, Lane L, Merrie A, Warren B, Mortensen NJ, Association of Coloproctology of Great B, Ireland Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery C (2009) A predictive model for local recurrence after transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:280–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar