Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for local excision of rectal neoplasms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eimear T Kyle, Devin H McCabe, Fiona K Ring, Niall J O'Sullivan, Brian J Mehigan, John Larkin, Paul H McCormick, Dara Kavanagh, Michael E Kelly
{"title":"Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for local excision of rectal neoplasms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Eimear T Kyle, Devin H McCabe, Fiona K Ring, Niall J O'Sullivan, Brian J Mehigan, John Larkin, Paul H McCormick, Dara Kavanagh, Michael E Kelly","doi":"10.1016/j.surge.2026.10.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Local excision techniques, including transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS), are widely used for selected rectal neoplasms, though direct comparative evidence remains limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD420251125364) searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL for comparative studies of TAMIS versus TEM/TEO. Primary endpoints were resection quality and a harmonised composite \"poor-quality resection\" endpoint (R1 margin and/or specimen fragmentation). Random-effects meta-analysis used the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment; certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies met inclusion criteria (TAMIS n = 341; TEM/TEO n = 409). Pooled estimates showed no difference in positive margins (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.52-2.85), specimen fragmentation (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.33-5.78), or the composite poor-quality endpoint (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.05-28.23; k = 2, wide interval reflecting HKSJ variance inflation at small k), all of very low certainty. Overall 30-day morbidity favoured TAMIS (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93; low certainty). TAMIS was associated with shorter operative duration (MD -36.4 min, 95% CI -46.2 to -26.5; low certainty). Observed length-of-stay differences likely reflected institutional perioperative pathways rather than platform-specific recovery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low-certainty evidence suggests TAMIS may shorten operative time and reduce 30-day morbidity compared with TEM/TEO. The evidence is very uncertain regarding resection quality, peritoneal violation, and long-term oncologic outcomes. These findings neither establish equivalence nor identify a decisive advantage for either platform; selection should continue to reflect local availability, cost, and surgeon experience. Prospective, ideally randomised, comparative studies with harmonised endpoints and patient-reported functional outcomes are now the priority.</p>","PeriodicalId":49463,"journal":{"name":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2026.10.006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Local excision techniques, including transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS), are widely used for selected rectal neoplasms, though direct comparative evidence remains limited.
Methods: A PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD420251125364) searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL for comparative studies of TAMIS versus TEM/TEO. Primary endpoints were resection quality and a harmonised composite "poor-quality resection" endpoint (R1 margin and/or specimen fragmentation). Random-effects meta-analysis used the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment; certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
Results: Four studies met inclusion criteria (TAMIS n = 341; TEM/TEO n = 409). Pooled estimates showed no difference in positive margins (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.52-2.85), specimen fragmentation (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.33-5.78), or the composite poor-quality endpoint (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.05-28.23; k = 2, wide interval reflecting HKSJ variance inflation at small k), all of very low certainty. Overall 30-day morbidity favoured TAMIS (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93; low certainty). TAMIS was associated with shorter operative duration (MD -36.4 min, 95% CI -46.2 to -26.5; low certainty). Observed length-of-stay differences likely reflected institutional perioperative pathways rather than platform-specific recovery.
Conclusion: Low-certainty evidence suggests TAMIS may shorten operative time and reduce 30-day morbidity compared with TEM/TEO. The evidence is very uncertain regarding resection quality, peritoneal violation, and long-term oncologic outcomes. These findings neither establish equivalence nor identify a decisive advantage for either platform; selection should continue to reflect local availability, cost, and surgeon experience. Prospective, ideally randomised, comparative studies with harmonised endpoints and patient-reported functional outcomes are now the priority.
期刊介绍：
Since its establishment in 2003, The Surgeon has established itself as one of the leading multidisciplinary surgical titles, both in print and online. The Surgeon is published for the worldwide surgical and dental communities. The goal of the Journal is to achieve wider national and international recognition, through a commitment to excellence in original research. In addition, both Colleges see the Journal as an important educational service, and consequently there is a particular focus on post-graduate development. Much of our educational role will continue to be achieved through publishing expanded review articles by leaders in their field.
Articles in related areas to surgery and dentistry, such as healthcare management and education, are also welcomed. We aim to educate, entertain, give insight into new surgical techniques and technology, and provide a forum for debate and discussion.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
