Objective To evaluate the curative effectiveness and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) vs. radical surgery (RS) for the patients with rectal malignant tumor, and to provide information for clinical research and practice. Methods Through computer searching The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, OVID, CBM and CNKI from inception to April 2010, and hand searching relevant journals including Chinese Journal of Surgery and Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, the randomized controlled trails (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trails (NRCTs) comparing TEM with RS for rectal malignant tumor were collected. Data were extracted and evaluated by two reviewers independently according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Meta-analyses were conducted using the Cochrane collaboration’s software RevMan 5.0. Results One RCT and four NRCTs met the selection criteria, involving 929 patients. The methodological quality of all trials was low with possibility of bias. The meta-analyses showed that: a) Three studies reported local recurrence in T1 stage patients. There was a significant difference in local recurrence between the two groups (OR=12.61, 95%CI 2.59 to 61.29, P=0.002); b) Two studies reported disease-free survival in T1 stage patients. There was no significant difference between the two groups in disease-free survival (OR=1.12, 95%CI 0.31 to 4.12, P=0.86); c) Three studies reported overall survival in T1 stage patients. There was no significant difference between the two groups (OR=1.09, 95%CI 0.57 to 2.08, P=0.80); and d) Three studies reported postoperative complications in T1 stage patients. There was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of complications (OR=0.05, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.10, Plt;0.00001). Conclusion For T1 stage patients, TEM is associated with less injury of tissue, less operative bleeding, short duration of hospital stay, and low incidence of postoperative complications. The disease-free and overall survivals are comparable to those of RS, but the local recurrence rate is higher. The role of TEM in T2 stage patients is still under discussion. However, the trails available for this systematic review are of lower methodological quality, and bias may exist due to NRCTs. Therefore, more high quality RCTs are required.
Objective To evaluate the status of lymph node metastasis and reasonable procedure in gastric cancer. Methods The incidence of metastases from gastric cancer to various regional lymph node stations was studied in 1 505 patients with gastric cancer. The patients underwent surgical resection from January 1995 to December 2004.Results Lymph node metastasis were observed in 928 of 1 505 cases (61.7%). Lymph node metastasis frequency was found in groups No.1 （32.9%），No.3 （28.7%）， No.2 （20.4%）， and No.7 （18.6%） at upper third stomach cancer；in groups No.3 （32.5%）， No.4 （24.7%）， No.7 （20.6%）， and No.1 （17.3%） at middle third stomach cancer； in groups No.6 （33.7%）， No.3 （31.3%）， No.4 （25.6%）， and No.7 （21.5%） at lower third stomach cancer. Conclusions Distribution of metastatic lymph node is clearly related to the location of the tumor. Anatomical extent of lymph node metastases in gastric cancer provid surgical guidance for surgeons.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for mid-to-lower rectal cancer and provide evidence for clinical decision-making. MethodsThe relevant literature from domestic and international databases in recent years was reviewed to systematically assess the current application of TaTME in the treatment of mid-to-low rectal cancer. A comparative analysis was conducted between the TaTME and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME), focusing on intraoperative outcomes, short-term postoperative recovery, intraoperative and postoperative complications, oncological prognosis, and the learning curve. ResultsConventional LapTME presented significant challenges in performing precise maneuvers within the pelvis and around the rectum, particularly in patients with “difficult pelvis” characteristics such as obesity, narrow pelvis, or male anatomy. In contrast, TaTME demonstrated certain advantages, including improved visualization of anatomical planes, reduced intraoperative bleeding, lower conversion rate to open surgery, faster short-term postoperative recovery, and enhanced specimen quality. ConclusionTaTME is a safe procedure with short-term outcomes, which is superior or comparable to those of laparoscopic surgery, offering a new surgical option for the treatment of mid-to-lower rectal cancer.