Modified Serial Techniques “ASTRO” Faciliated Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for ultralow-Lying Rectal Cancer in Obese Male Patients (original) (raw)

Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision

Annals of Surgery, 2003

To analyze total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer by the laparoscopic approach during a prospective nonrandomized trial.

Total mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer

2005

Introduction: In the surgical treatment of rectal cancer, a clear circumferential resection margin and distal resection margin should be obtained. The aim of this study was to determine the morbidity, mortality, survival outcome, and local failure after total mesorectal excision (TME) in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on 101 patients treated for rectal cancer using low anterior resection (LAR), abdominoperinial resection (APR), or Hartmaan's technique. In all operative procedures, total mesorectal excisions (TMEs) were done. The patients were treated from November 2000 to April 2011 in the South Egypt Cancer Institute (SECI) of Assuit University (Egypt). Neo-adjuvant therapy was given to those patients with serosalin filtration, lymph node involvement, and sexual and urinary function impairment. Data were analyzed using IBM-SPSS version 21, and survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: One hundred one patients were evaluable (61 males, 40 females). Regarding the operative procedure used, it was: (APR), LAR, Hartmaan's technique in 15.8%, 71.3%, and 12.9% of patients, respectively. Operation-related mortality during the 30 days after surgery was 3%. The operations resulted in morbidity in 25% of the patients, anastomotic site leak in 5.9% of the patients, urinary dysfynction in 9.9% of the patients, and erectile dysfunction in 15.8% of the male patients. Regarding safety margin, the median distances were distal/radial margin, 23/12 mm, distal limit 7 cm. Median lymph nodes harvest 19 nodes. Primary tumor locations were anteriorly 23.

Total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer

Electronic physician, 2015

Introduction: In the surgical treatment of rectal cancer, a clear circumferential resection margin and distal resection margin should be obtained. The aim of this study was to determine the morbidity, mortality, survival outcome, and local failure after total mesorectal excision (TME) in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on 101 patients treated for rectal cancer using low anterior resection (LAR), abdominoperinial resection (APR), or Hartmaan's technique. In all operative procedures, total mesorectal excisions (TMEs) were done. The patients were treated from November 2000 to April 2011 in the South Egypt Cancer Institute (SECI) of Assuit University (Egypt). Neo-adjuvant therapy was given to those patients with serosalin filtration, lymph node involvement, and sexual and urinary function impairment. Data were analyzed using IBM-SPSS version 21, and survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: One hundred one patients were evaluable (61 males, 40 females). Regarding the operative procedure used, it was: (APR), LAR, Hartmaan's technique in 15.8%, 71.3%, and 12.9% of patients, respectively. Operation-related mortality during the 30 days after surgery was 3%. The operations resulted in morbidity in 25% of the patients, anastomotic site leak in 5.9% of the patients, urinary dysfynction in 9.9% of the patients, and erectile dysfunction in 15.8% of the male patients. Regarding safety margin, the median distances were distal/radial margin, 23/12 mm, distal limit 7 cm. Median lymph nodes harvest 19 nodes. Primary tumor locations were anteriorly 23.

Factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with double stapling technique anastomosis for low rectal cancer

Surgery, 2009

Background. Although the laparoscopic approach is accepted for the treatment of colon cancer, its value for low rectal cancer is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of patient and tumor factors, particularly pelvic dimensions, on the difficulties in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer. Methods. Seventy-nine consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic TME with intracorporeal rectal transection and double stapling technique (DST) anastomosis for low rectal cancer. Gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor diameter, tumor depth, tumor distance from the anal verge, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, and 5 pelvic dimensions (pelvic inlet, pelvic outlet, length of sacrum, interspinous distance, and intertuberous distance) were analyzed as variables affecting the difficulties of laparoscopic TME. The dependent variables were pelvic operative time, which was defined as the time required for dissection of the rectum from the pelvis, intracorporeal transaction, and anastomosis. Other dependent variables were intraoperative blood loss, overall postoperative morbidity, and anastomotic leakage. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the predictive significance of variables. Results. Multivariate analysis showed that BMI (P < .0001), tumor distance from the anal verge (P = .0003), tumor depth (P = .0021), and pelvic outlet (P = .0362) were independently predictive of pelvic operative time. Pelvic operative time was related to intraoperative blood loss (P < .0001). The tumor distance from the anal verge (P = .0333, odds ratio [OR]: 1.06) was related to postoperative morbidity, and pelvic outlet was related to anastomotic leakage (P = .0305, OR: 1.13). Conclusion. BMI, tumor distance from the anal verge, tumor depth, and pelvic outlet were independent predictors for operative time and morbidity. These factors should be taken into account when planning laparoscopic TME.

Mahmoud N Kulaylat Mesorectal excision: Surgical anatomy of the rectum, mesorectum, and pelvic fascia and nerves and clinical relevance World Journal of Surgical Procedures

Biologic behavior and management of rectal cancer differ significantly from that of colon cancer. The surgical treatment is challenging since the rectum has dual arterial blood supply and venous drainage, extensive lymphatic drainage and is located in a bony pelvic in close proximity to urogenital and neurovascular structures that are invested with intricate fascial covering. The rectum is encased by fatty lymphovascular tissue (mesorectum) that is surrounded by perirectal fascia that act as barrier to the spread of the cancer and constitute the surgical circumferential margin. Locoregional recurrence after rectal cancer surgery is influenced by tumor-related factors and adequacy of the resection. Local recurrence is associated with incomplete excision of circumferential margin, violation of perirectal fascia, transmesorectal dissection, presence of isolated deposits in the mesorectum and tumor in regional lymph nodes and incomplete lymph node clearance. Hence to eradicate the primary rectal tumor and control regional disease, the rectum, first area of lymph node drainage and surrounding tissue must be completely excised while maintaining an intact fascial envelope around the rectum and preserving surrounding structures. This is achieved with extrafascial dissection and removal of the entire mesorectum including the portion distal to the tumor (total mesorectal excision) within its enveloping fascia as an intact unit. Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care surgical treatment of mid and low rectal cancer and can be performed in conjunction with low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection, extralevator abdominoperineal resection, and extraregional dissection. To accomplish such a resection, thorough knowledge of the surgical anatomy of the rectum and pelvic structures and fascial planes is paramount. Core tip: Radical resection of rectal cancer entails removal of the rectum with its fascia as an intact unit while preserving surrounding vital structures. The procedure is technically challenging because of the complex multilayered pelvic fascia and intimate relationship between the rectum and vital surrounding structures. Despite the clear-cut " text book " description of surgical technique and straightforward manner of handling different structures in the pelvis, there are many variations and contradictory accounts reported in the literature as to the nature, anatomy and significance of some of the structures, proper plane of dissection, and the optimal technique to achieve oncological resection while decreasing urogenital and bowel dysfunction. Kulaylat MN. Mesorectal excision: Surgical anatomy of the rectum, mesorectum, and pelvic fascia and nerves and clinical relevance. World J Surg Proced 2015; 5(1): 27-40 Available from:

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME): single-centre early experience in a selected population

Updates in Surgery, 2018

Total mesorectal excision (TME) represents the key principle in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Transanal mesorectal excision was introduced as a complement to conventional surgery to overcome its technical difficulties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the early surgical results following the introduction of this novel technique at our Unit. Between January and May 2016, 12 patients diagnosed with mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled into this study and evaluated with regards demography, histopathology, peri-operative data and postoperative complications. The tumor was located in the middle rectum in 6 patients (50%), in the lower rectum in 6 patients (50%). Mean operative time was 356.5 ± 76.2 min (range 240-494). Eleven out 12 patients (91.6%) had less than 200 mL of intraoperative blood loss. Mean hospital stay was 10.9 ± 4.6 days (range 5-19). No mortality was recorded. Intraoperative complications were recorded in 1, while early post-operative complications (< 30 days) were observed in 5 patients (41.6%). Histopathology showed in all cases an intact mesorectum. Mean number of lymphnodes harvested was 13.6 ± 6.6 (range 4-29). Distal and circumferential margin was, respectively, of 20.8 ± 14.2 mm (range 2-45 mm) and 16.1 ± 7.6 mm (range 3-30 mm). The comparative analysis showed significant differences concerning mean operative time (p = 0.0473) and estimated blood loss (p = 0.0367). This study confirms this technique is safe and feasible, but more evidence to support its use over conventional laparoscopic surgery is needed.

Focus on Extralevator Perineal Dissection in Supine Position for Low Rectal Cancer Has Led to Better Quality of Surgery and Oncologic Outcome

Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2012

Background. After abdominoperineal excision (APE), the presence of tumor cells in the circumferential resection margin (R1) and iatrogenic tumor perforations are still frequent and result in an increased rate of local recurrences. In this study, a standardized supine APE with an increased focus on the perineal dissection (sPPD) is compared to the customary supine APE. Methods. From 2000 to 2010, a total of 246 patients underwent APE for rectal cancer (sPPD and customary supine APE). All patients were staged with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and received neoadjuvant treatment (n = 203) when margins were involved or threatened (cT3 ? and T4). As a result of a quality improvement program in 2006, the surgical technique was modified: it became standardized, emphasis was placed on the perineal dissection, and pelvic dissection was limited to avoid false routes when following the total mesorectal excision planes deep into the pelvis. Results. Overall, the percentage of involved circumferential resection margins (CRMs) was 10%. In the period before introducing sPPD, the R1 percentages for cT0-3 and cT4 tumors were 6.8 and 30.2%, compared to 2.2 and 5.7% after introduction of sPPD (P = 0.001). Risk factors for R1 resection were preoperative T4 tumors (14.9%, P = 0.011), tumor perforation (33.3%, P = 0.002), fistulating tumors (35.7%, P = 0.002), mucus-producing tumors (23.1%, P = 0.006), or bulky tumors (66.7%, P \ 0.001).

The Implementation of a Standardized Approach to Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery

JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 2012

Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to audit our results after implementation of a standardized operative approach to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer within a fast-track recovery program. Methods: From January 2009 to February 2011, 100 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic surgery on an intention-to-treat basis for rectal cancer. The results were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database. Operative steps and instrumentation for the procedure were standardized. A standard perioperative care plan was used. Results: The following procedures were performed: low anterior resection (nϭ26), low anterior resection with loop-ileostomy (nϭ39), Hartmann's operation (nϭ14), and abdominoperineal resection (nϭ21). The median length of hospital stay was 7 days; 9 patients were readmitted. There were 9 cases of conversion to open surgery. The overall complication rate was 35%, including 6 cases (9%) of anastomotic leakages requiring reoperation. The 30-day mortality was 5%. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 15 (range, 2 to 48). There were 6 cases of positive circumferential resection margins. The median follow-up was 9 (range, 1 to 27) months. One patient with disseminated cancer developed port-site metastasis. Conclusions: The results confirm the safety of a standardized approach, and the oncological outcomes are comparable to those of similar studies.