Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 279–287 | Cite as

Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: evaluation of the learning curve

  • T. W. A. Koedam
  • M. Veltcamp Helbach
  • P. M. van de Ven
  • Ph. M. Kruyt
  • N. T. van Heek
  • H. J. Bonjer
  • J. B. Tuynman
  • C. Sietses
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) provides an excellent view of the resection margins for rectal cancer from below, but is challenging due to few anatomical landmarks. During implementation of this technique, patient safety and optimal outcomes need to be ensured. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve of TaTME in patients with rectal cancer in order to optimize future training programs.

Methods

All consecutive patients after TaTME for rectal cancer between February 2012 and January 2017 were included in a single-center database. Influence of surgical experience on major postoperative complications, leakage rate and operating time was evaluated using cumulative sum charts and the splitting model. Correction for potential case-mix differences was performed.

Results

Over a period of 60 months, a total of 138 patients were included in this study. Adjusted for case-mix, improvement in postoperative outcomes was clearly seen after the first 40 patients, showing a decrease in major postoperative complications from 47.5 to 17.5% and leakage rate from 27.5 to 5%. Mean operating time (42 min) and conversion rate (from 10% to zero) was lower after transition to a two-team approach, but neither endpoint decreased with experience. Readmission and reoperation rates were not influenced by surgical experience.

Conclusions

The learning curve of TaTME affected major (surgical) postoperative complications for the first 40 patients. A two-team approach decreased operative time and conversion rate. When implementing this new technique, a thorough teaching and supervisory program is recommended to shorten the learning curve and improve the clinical outcomes of the first patients.

Keywords

Transanal endoscopic surgery Rectal neoplasms Learning curve 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest, directly related to this study. H.J. Bonjer has received research grants from Applied, Medtronic, Olympus and Ethicon. J.B. Tuynman has received a research grant from the Dutch Cancer Society and speaker honorarium from Applied Medical. C. Sietses received a speaker honorarium from Applied Medical. T.W.A. Koedam, M. Veltcamp Helbach, P.M. van de Ven, Ph.M. Kruyt, and N.T. van Heek have nothing to declare.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Data availability

The datasets during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.
    Heald RJ, Ryall RD (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1:1479–1482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID et al (2001) Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 345:638–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ (1993) Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 341:457–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA et al (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II trial). N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH et al (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:767–774CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F et al (2013) Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 100:75–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van der Pas MHGM, Deijen CL, Abis GA et al (2017) Conversions in laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 31:2263–2270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lacy AM, Rattner DW, Adelsdorfer C et al (2013) Transanal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) rectal resection: “down-to up” total mesorectal excision (TME)—short-term outcomes in the first 20 cases. Surg Endosc 27:3165–3172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lacy AM, Tasende MM, Delgado S et al (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: outcomes after 140 patients. J Am Coll Surg 221:415–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Veltcamp Helbach M, Deijen CL, Velthuis S et al (2016) Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma: short-term outcomes and experience after 80 cases. Surg Endosc 30(2):464–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deijen CL, Tsai A, Koedam TW et al (2016) Clinical outcomes and case volume effect of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol 20(12):811–824CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S et al (2017) Transanal total mesorectal excision: international registry results of the first 720 cases. Ann Surg 266(1):111–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Francis N, Penna M, Mackenzie H et al (2017) Consensus on structured training curriculum for transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Surg Endosc 31:2711–2719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP et al (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 242:83–91CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bege T, Lelong B, Esterni B et al (2010) The learning curve for the laparoscopic approach to conservative mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 251:249–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McArdle CS, Hole D (1991) Impact of variability among surgeons on postoperative morbidity and mortality and ultimate survival. BMJ 302:1501–1505CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Porter GA, Soskolne CL, Yakimets WW et al (1998) Surgeon-related factors and outcome in rectal cancer. Ann Surg 227:157–167CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martling A, Cedermark B, Johansson H et al (2002) The surgeon as a prognostic factor after the introduction of total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 89(8):1008–1013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dutch guidelines rectal carcinoma. Oncoline. http://www.oncoline.nl/index.php?pagina=/richtlijn/item/pagina.php&id=37086&richtlijn_id=933. Accessed 13 July 2017
  20. 20.
    Arroyave MC, DeLacy FB, Lacy AM (2016) Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: step by step description of the surgical technique for a two-teams approach. Eur J Surg Oncol 2:502–505Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nagtegaal I, van de Veld CJH, van der Worp E et al (2002) Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 20:1729–1734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 147(3):339–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park EJ, Kim CW, Cho MS et al (2014) Is the learning curve of robotic low anterior resection shorter than laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer? Medicine 93(25):109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim CH, Kim HJ, Huh JW et al (2014) Learning curve of laparoscopic low anterior resection in terms of local recurrence. J Surg Oncol 110:989–996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khan N, Abboudi H, Khan MS et al (2014) Measuring the surgical ‘learning curve’: methods, variables and competency. BJU Int 113:504–508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen W, Sailhamer E, Berger DL et al (2007) Operative time is a poor surrogate for the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 21:238–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. W. A. Koedam
    • 1
  • M. Veltcamp Helbach
    • 2
  • P. M. van de Ven
    • 3
  • Ph. M. Kruyt
    • 2
  • N. T. van Heek
    • 2
  • H. J. Bonjer
    • 1
  • J. B. Tuynman
    • 1
  • C. Sietses
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryHospital Gelderse ValleiEdeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations