Analysis of quality of life of rectal cancer patients after transanal total mesorectal excision and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a retrospective cohort study

doi:10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2025.04.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Background and purpose: There are few studies on the quality of life after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer, and there is a lack of evidence-based research. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of TaTME in comparison to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) on postoperative quality of life in patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical and pathological data from rectal cancer patients who underwent LaTME and TaTME between September 2019 and September 2022 at Renhe Hospital, Baoshan District, Shanghai, and Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. All the patients completed a set of validated questionnaires one year postoperatively, including the EORCT QLQ-C30, Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) score, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Comparative analysis of these survey results was performed.The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Renhe Hospital, Baoshan District, Shanghai. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist was followed for this study. Results: A total of 39 patients in the TaTME group and 38 patients in the LaTME group were included. There were no statistically significant differences between two groups regarding demographic variables such as gender and age, as well as clinical factors including tumor distance from the anal verge, tumor stage, and preoperative neoadjuvant treatment protocols. Analysis of EORCT QLQ-C30 results indicated equivalent overall quality of life between the two groups; however, the TaTME group reported significantly more severe insomnia (P=0.020). No significant differences were observed in LARS severity or total scores between the groups, though the TaTME group demonstrated superior functional outcomes in terms of incontinence for liquid stools and clustering of stools (P=0.007, P=0.004). Additionally, both groups exhibited comparable results in IPSS, and levels of depression and anxiety. Conclusion: The findings suggest that TaTME and LaTME yield similar outcomes in terms of anal and urinary function, overall quality of life, and psychological health, indicating that it is a viable and safe alternative to LaTME in terms of postoperative quality of life.

Key words: Transanal total mesorectal excision, Rectal cancer, Quality of life, Organ function, Psychological health

CHEN Jiayu, LI Yue, CHEN Fan, LI Yuxue, FENG Shidong, HUANG Qi, LI Dawei, LIAO Zhiwei. Analysis of quality of life of rectal cancer patients after transanal total mesorectal excision and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a retrospective cohort study[J]. China Oncology, 2025, 35(4): 376-385.

Figures/Tables 9

Fig. 1

Tab. 1

Tab. 2

Tab. 3

Tab. 4

Tab. 5

Tab. 6

Tab. 7

Tab. 8

References 25

[1]	HEALD R J, HUSBAND E M, RYALL R D. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery: the clue to pelvic recurrence?[J]. 1982, 69(10): 613-616.
[2]	JAAP BONJER H, DEIJEN C L, ABIS G A, et al. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2015, 372(14): 1324-1332.
[3]	JAYNE D G, THORPE H C, COPELAND J, et al. Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer[J]. Br J Surg, 2010, 97(11): 1638-1645. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7160 pmid: 20629110
[4]	KANG S B, PARK J W, JEONG S Y, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2010, 11(7): 637-645.
[5]	JEONG S Y, PARK J W, NAM B H, et al. 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[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2014, 15(7): 767-774.
[6]	ROUANET P, MOURREGOT A, AZAR C C, et al. Transanal endoscopic proctectomy: an innovative procedure for difficult resection of rectal tumors in men with narrow pelvis[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 2013, 56(4): 408-415. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182756fa0 pmid: 23478607
[7]	SYLLA P, RATTNER D W, DELGADO S, et al. NOTES transanal rectal cancer resection using transanal endoscopic microsurgery and laparoscopic assistance[J]. Surg Endosc, 2010, 24(5): 1205-1210. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-0965-6 pmid: 20186432
[8]	PENNA M, HOMPES R, ARNOLD S, et al. Transanal total mesorectal excision: International registry results of the first 720 cases[J]. Ann Surg, 2017, 266(1): 111-117. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001948 pmid: 27735827
[9]	孟琼, 万崇华, 罗家洪. 癌症患者生命质量测定量表EORT CQLQ-C30的应用[J]. 中国行为医学科学, 2005, 14(3): 273-274.
	MENG Q, WAN C H, LUO J H. Application of EORT CQLQ-C30, a quality of life scale for cancer patients[J]. Chin J Behav Med Sci, 2005, 14(3): 273-274.
[10]	闫晶晶, 牟绍玉, 谭人福, 等. 直肠癌低位前切除综合征评分表中文版的实证研究[J]. 解放军护理杂志, 2015, 32(4): 12-15.
	YAN J J, MU S Y, TAN R F, et al. Empirical research of the Chinese version of low anterior resection syndrome score (LARS)[J]. Nurs J Chin People’s Liberation Army, 2015, 32(4): 12-15.
[11]	李一夫, 李晓琳, 张岩, 等. 国际前列腺症状评分的汉化与评价[J]. 全科医学临床与教育, 2019, 17(4): 305-307.
	LI Y F, LI X L, ZHANG Y, et al. Evaluation of a modified Chinese version of the international prostate symptom score[J]. Clin Educ Gen Pract, 2019, 17(4): 305-307.
[12]	周妍妍, 毕亚红, 劳力敏, 等. 广泛性焦虑量表在筛查广泛性焦虑障碍中的应用[J]. 中华全科医师杂志, 2018, 17(9): 735-737.
	ZHOU Y Y, BI Y H, LAO L M, et al. Application of GAD-7 in population screening for generalized anxiety disorder[J]. Chin J Gen Pract, 2018, 17(9): 735-737.
[13]	闵宝权, 周爱红, 梁丰, 等. 病人健康问卷抑郁自评量表(PHQ-9)的临床应用[J]. 神经疾病与精神卫生, 2013, 13(6): 569-572.
	MIN B Q, ZHOU A H, LIANG F, et al. Clinical application of patient health questionnaire for self-administered measurement (PHQ-9) as screening tool for depression[J]. J Neurosci Ment Health, 2013, 13(6): 569-572.
[14]	LI Z, XIAO J K, HOU Y J, et al. Transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in male patients with low tumor location after neoadjuvant therapy: a propensity score-matched cohort study[J]. Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2022, 2022: 2387464.
[15]	YI X H, ZHANG X, LI Q C, et al. Comparing perioperative and oncological outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective studies[J]. Surg Endosc, 2023, 37(12): 9228-9243. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10495-y pmid: 37872424
[16]	VELTCAMP HELBACH M, KOEDAM T W A, KNOL J J, et al. Quality of life after rectal cancer surgery: differences between laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision[J]. Surg Endosc, 2019, 33(1): 79-87. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6276-z pmid: 29967994
[17]	BJOERN M X, NIELSEN S, PERDAWOOD S K. Quality of life after surgery for rectal cancer: a comparison of functional outcomes after transanal and laparoscopic approaches[J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2019, 23(8): 1623-1630. doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-4057-6 pmid: 30603861
[18]	KOEDAM T A, VAN RAMSHORST G H, DEIJEN C L, et al. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: effects on patient-reported quality of life and functional outcome[J]. Tech Coloproctol, 2017, 21(1): 25-33. doi: 10.1007/s10151-016-1570-z pmid: 28044239
[19]	WILLIAMSON M E, LEWIS W G, FINAN P J, et al. Recovery of physiologic and clinical function after low anterior resection of the rectum for carcinoma: myth or reality?[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 1995, 38(4): 411-418. pmid: 7720451
[20]	ANDERSSON J, ABIS G, GELLERSTEDT M, et al. Patient-reported genitourinary dysfunction after laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery in a randomized trial (COLOR Ⅱ)[J]. Br J Surg, 2016, 103(12): 1746.
[21]	MORA L, ZARATE A, SERRA-ARACIL X, et al. Functional impairment and quality of life after rectal cancer surgery[J]. Cir Cir, 2018, 86(2): 140-147.
[22]	BJOERN M X, PERDAWOOD S K. Manometric assessment of anorectal function after transanal total mesorectal excision[J]. Tech Coloproctol, 2020, 24(3): 231-236. doi: 10.1007/s10151-020-02147-3 pmid: 32008213
[23]	PONTALLIER A, DENOST Q, VAN GELUWE B, et al. Potential sexual function improvement by using transanal mesorectal approach for laparoscopic low rectal cancer excision[J]. Surg Endosc, 2016, 30(11): 4924-4933. pmid: 26944728
[24]	WALLNER C, LANGE M M, BONSING B A, et al. Causes of fecal and urinary incontinence after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer based on cadaveric surgery: a study from the Cooperative Clinical Investigators of the Dutch total mesorectal excision trial[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2008, 26(27): 4466-4472. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.3062 pmid: 18802159
[25]	LI Z B, WANG Q, NING W W, et al. Transanal total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis[J]. Surg Endosc, 2023, 37(9): 6852-6860. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10090-1 pmid: 37308763

Variable	TaTME (n=39)	LaTME (n=38)	P value
Age/year	60.0±11.9	58.9±11.7	0.682
Gender			0.023
Male	26 (66.7%)	15 (39.5%)
Female	13 (33.3%)	23 (60.5%)
BMI/(kg·m^-2)	24.6±3.5	23.7±3.8	0.293
ASA			0.352
Ⅰ	3 (7.7%)	10 (26.3%)
Ⅱ	36 (92.3%)	24 (63.2%)
Ⅲ	0 (0.0%)	4 (10.5%)
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy			0.135
No	24 (61.5%)	30 (78.9%)
Yes	15 (38.5%)	8 (21.1%)
Preoperative T stage			0.944
T1	0 (0.0%)	4 (10.5%)
T2	18 (46.2%)	12 (31.6%)
T3	21 (53.8%)	22 (57.9%)
Preoperative N stage			0.802
Negative	27 (69.2%)	28 (73.7%)
Positive	12 (30.8%)	10 (26.3%)
Positive circumferential resection margin			1.000
No	39 (100.0%)	38 (100.0%)
Yes	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Completeness mesorectum			0.115
Complete	39 (100.0%)	35 (92.1%)
Nearly complete	0 (0.0%)	3 (7.9%)
Diverting ileostomy			0.013
No	8 (20.5%)	18 (47.4%)
Yes	31 (79.5%)	20 (52.6%)
Operative time t/min	177.2±66.2	141.5±41.9	0.006
Blood loss volume V/mL	88.5±59.2	68.4±40.2	0.087

Variable	TaTME (n=39)	LaTME (n=38)	P value
Global health status scale score	74.4 (50-100)	78.1 (50-100)	0.311
Functional scale score
Physical functioning	90.7 (33.3-100)	92.6 (53.3-100)	0.970
Role functioning	79.5 (33.3-100)	86.8 (66.7-100)	0.116
Emotional functioning	88.3 (66.7-100)	91.2 (66.7-100)	0.645
Cognitive functioning	88.5 (66.7-100)	91.2 (66.7-100)	0.210
Social functioning	72.6 (33.3-100)	79.3 (33.3-100)	0.128
Symptom scale score
Fatigue	15.6 (0-66.7)	16.3 (0-43.3)	0.775
Nausea and vomiting	3.8 (0-16.7)	10.5 (0-33.3)	0.063
Pain	9.0 (0-33.3)	4.4 (0-33.3)	0.116
Dyspnea	5.1 (0-33.3)	7.0 (0-33.3)	0.522
Insomnia	15.4 (0-66.7)	5.3 (0-33.3)	0.020
Appetite loss	25.6 (0-33.3)	35.1 (0-100)	0.833
Constipation	23.1 (0-66.7)	22.8 (0-66.7)	0.947
Diarrhea	23.1 (0-66.7)	24.6 (0-66.7)	0.868
Financial difficulties	17.9 (0-100)	10.5 (0-33.3)	0.707

Variable	TaTME (n=32)	LaTME (n=36)	P value
LARS score	21.6 ± 8.8	25.5 ± 10.0	0.094
LARS score category			0.100
No (0-20 points)	7 (21.9%)	12 (33.3%)
Minor (21-29 points)	19 (59.4%)	10 (27.8%)
Major (30-42 points)	6 (18.8%)	14 (38.9%)
Incontinence for flatus			0.095
Never	3 (9.4%)	6 (16.7%)
<Once a week	16 (50%)	22 (61.1%)
≥Once a week	13 (40.6%)	8 (22.2%)
Incontinence for liquid			0.007
Never	23 (71.9%)	14 (38.9%)
<Once a week	5 (15.6%)	15 (41.7%)
≥Once a week	4 (12.5%)	7 (19.4%)
Bowel frequency			0.091
1-3 times a day	13 (40.6%)	20 (55.6%)
4-7 times a day	5 (15.6%)	4 (11.1%)
>7 times a day	2 (6.3%)	8 (22.2%)
<Once a day	12 (37.5%)	4 (11.1%)
Clustering of stools			0.004
Never	13 (40.6%)	2 (5.6%)
<Once a week	12 (37.5%)	20 (55.6%)
≥Once a week	7 (21.9%)	14 (38.9%)
Urgency			0.318
Never	11 (34.4%)	12 (33.3%)
<Once a week	18 (56.3%)	14 (38.9%)
≥Once a week	3 (9.4%)	10 (27.8%)

Variable	No LARS (n=26)	Minor/major LARS (n=42)	Univariable		Multivariable
Variable	No LARS (n=26)	Minor/major LARS (n=42)	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value
Surgical method				0.379
LaTME	12 (46.2%)	24 (57.1%)	1
TaTME	14 (53.8%)	18 (42.9%)	0.643 (0.240-1.719)
Age			0.941 (0.893-0.991)	0.022	0.976 (0.927-1.029)	0.372
Gender				0.194
Female	10 (38.5%)	23 (54.8%)	1
Male	16 (61.5%)	19 (45.2%)	1.937 (0.715-5.248)
BMI/(kg·m^-2)				0.003		0.261
<24	20 (76.9%)	16 (38.1%)	1
≥24	6 (23.1%)	26 (61.9%)	5.417 (1.795-16.348)		2.061 (0.583-7.28)
ASA				0.901
Ⅰ	4 (15.4%)	6 (14.3%)	1
Ⅱ-Ⅲ	22 (84.6%)	36 (85.7%)	1.091 (0.277-4.301)
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy				0.291
No	21 (80.8%)	29 (69.0%)	1
Yes	5 (19.2%)	13 (31.0%)	1.883 (0.582-6.093)
Preoperative T stage				0.051
T1-2	15 (57.7%)	14 (33.3%)	1
T3	11 (42.3%)	28 (66.7%)	2.727 (0.995-7.476)
Preoperative N stage				0.213
Negative	21 (80.8%)	28 (66.7%)	1
Positive	5 (19.2%)	14 (33.3%)	0.476 (0.148-1.53)
Completeness mesorectum				0.858
Complete	25 (96.2%)	40 (95.2%)	1
Nearly complete	1 (3.8%)	2 (4.8%)	1.250 (0.108-14.513)
Diverting ileostomy				0.292
No	12 (46.2%)	14 (33.3%)	1
Yes	14 (53.8%)	28 (66.7%)	1.714 (0.629-4.674)
Operative time			1.026 (1.012-1.041)	<0.001	1.021 (1.005-1.037)	0.009
Blood loss volume			1.008 (0.996-1.019)	0.184

Variable	TaTME (n=26)	LaTME (n=15)	P value
IPSS categories			0.481
Mild dysfunction (0-7 points)	20 (76.9%)	10 (66.7%)
Moderate dysfunction (8-19 points)	6 (23.1%)	5 (33.3%)
Severe dysfunction (20-35 points)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)