Literature DB >> 20076969

Laparoscopic TME in rectal cancer--electronic supplementary: op-video.

Alois Fürst1, Oliver Schwandner, Arthur Heiligensetzer, Igors Iesalnieks, Ayman Agha.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer has been proved in various studies. The minimal invasive procedure is feasible and safe which was demonstrated in many studies. However, the results of prospective, randomized studies providing valuable evidence are still not available. Compared to conventional surgery, the laparoscopic technique has short-term advantages including less pain, shorter duration of postoperative ileus, less fatigue, better pulmonary function, and less blood loss (Leung et al., Lancet 363:1187-1192, 2004; Braga et al., Dis Colon Rectum 48:217-223, 2005; Jayne et al., J Clin Oncol 25:3061-3068, 2007; Agha et al., Surg Endosc 22:2229-2237, 2008).
METHODS: The autonomic nerve sparing TME technique is the gold standard in rectal cancer resection even in conventional or laparoscopic procedure. With regard of the oncological dimension, the laparoscopic TME technique is not different compared to the open procedure. However, a standardized laparoscopic step-by-step procedure may simplify the operation and can reduce operation time.
RESULTS: There are no studies available which compare different types of TME procedures. Most surgeons start the operation left laterally mobilizing the sigmoid colon first. In the laparoscopic technique, we recommend the medial to lateral approach starting the operation at the right side of the rectum and sigmoid colon. A nerve sparing TME technique can be performed easier, and the identification of the left ureter may be simplified. After multiple workshops and extensive discussion with national and international experts, we developed a standardized laparoscopic "10 step TME procedure." Reviewing the results of laparoscopic TME the studies do not allow firm conclusions as to the questions of whether the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic TME is equal or superior to open TME (Breukink et al. 2006). Actually, we are waiting for large prospective randomized studies comparing laparoscopic TME with the traditional open procedure (Bonjer et al., Dan Med Bull 56:89-91, 2009).
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic TME appears to have clinically measurable short-term advantages in patients with primary resectable rectal cancer based on evidence mainly from nonrandomized studies (Breukink et al. 5). In nearly all published studies, the efficacy and technical feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer could be demonstrated regarding perioperative morbidity and oncological outcome. A standardized laparoscopic TME technique can be strongly recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20076969      PMCID: PMC2814039          DOI: 10.1007/s00423-009-0556-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


Introduction

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) is technically feasible and safe; however, the oncological outcome has not been evaluated by large studies with high evidence level to date [7-13]. Large prospective randomized studies comparing laparoscopic-assisted with the conventional TME are not available. Actually, well-documented prospective patient series represents an important contribution to the evaluation of surgery adopting the laparoscopic-assisted technique. For colorectal carcinoma, advantages of the minimally invasive surgery have been indicated by several studies [11, 14, 15]. Multicenter prospective randomized studies have shown comparable postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes for colon carcinoma [16-18].

Standardized surgical technique of laparoscopic TME

Position of the patient (Video 1) The positioning of the patient is essential in laparoscopic TME. The patient is positioned in the perineal lithotomy position. The operating table must have enough mobility to facilitate a head down and right-sided position simultaneously. Trocar position An open access of the first trocar is recommended. The position of the camera trocar is 2 cm above the umbilicus. Two trocars are localized at the lower part of the abdomen and one trocar at the right middle part (Fig. 1). A fifth trocar is optional.
Fig. 1

Trocar position of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery

Ten-step procedure of laparoscopic TME (*Video 2) Trocar position of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery A standardized laparoscopic procedure helps to make the operation easier and faster. Especially the “medial to lateral approach” helps to keep the autonomic nerves intact and simplifies the mobilization of the left colon and the identification of the left ureter (Table 1).
Table 1

Standardized ten-step procedure of laparoscopic TME

1Medial to lateral preparation of arteria rectalis superior and autonomic nerves
2Identification of the left ureter
3Clip the arteria mesenterica inferior
4Clip the vena mesenterica inferior
5Mobilization of the left colon (medial and lateral)
6Mobilization of the left flecture (medial/lateral/omental)
7Preparation along the mesorectal plane
8Division of the distal rectum (endostapler)
9Extra-abdominal division of the descending colon
10Anastomosis with a transanal stapler device
Colonic pouch Standardized ten-step procedure of laparoscopic TME A short 5-cm-long colonic J-pouch is recommended as shown by an international prospective randomized study [19]. Protective ileostomy According to the guidelines, a protective ileostomy is recommended after TME in almost all countries. *Video clips of several patients

Conclusion

Laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is still a matter of controversial discussions. One important question is whether laparoscopic surgery achieves the oncological quality criteria of conventional rectal surgery. The results of retrospective and prospective studies published to date on rectal cancer suggest that minimally invasive surgery is able to maintain the recommended oncological standards of conventional tumor surgery, and that morbidity and mortality do not differ significantly from open surgery. However, few centers are able to present larger numbers of laparoscopically treated patients with rectal cancer. At present, there are only short-term results available, without significant differences found between the laparoscopic and the open resection [1, 2, 4, 7–9, 12, 14, 20–24]. Thus, more studies with high patient numbers and long-term follow-up are needed to compare patient outcome and long-term survival rates after open or laparoscopic surgery (color II trial in progress) [6]. Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. (AVI 6 mb) (AVI 32 mb)
  22 in total

1.  Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  N S Abraham; J M Young; M J Solomon
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Rolf Sauer; Heinz Becker; Werner Hohenberger; Claus Rödel; Christian Wittekind; Rainer Fietkau; Peter Martus; Jörg Tschmelitsch; Eva Hager; Clemens F Hess; Johann-H Karstens; Torsten Liersch; Heinz Schmidberger; Rudolf Raab
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-10-21       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Laparoscopic vs. open abdominoperineal resection for cancer.

Authors:  J W Fleshman; S D Wexner; M Anvari; J F LaTulippe; E H Birnbaum; I J Kodner; T E Read; J J Nogueras; E G Weiss
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.585

4.  Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a consecutive series of 100 patients.

Authors:  Mario Morino; Umberto Parini; Giuseppe Giraudo; Micky Salval; Riccardo Brachet Contul; Corrado Garrone
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial.

Authors:  Ka Lau Leung; Samuel P Y Kwok; Steve C W Lam; Janet F Y Lee; Raymond Y C Yiu; Simon S M Ng; Paul B S Lai; Wan Yee Lau
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004-04-10       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.

Authors:  Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-13       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open resections for rectal cancer for 124 unselected patients.

Authors:  F Feliciotti; M Guerrieri; A M Paganini; A De Sanctis; R Campagnacci; S Perretta; G D'Ambrosio; E Lezoche
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery: long-term outcomes.

Authors:  J Leroy; F Jamali; L Forbes; M Smith; F Rubino; D Mutter; J Marescaux
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-12-29       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report.

Authors:  J W Milsom; B Böhm; K A Hammerhofer; V Fazio; E Steiger; P Elson
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 6.113

10.  Outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in 101 patients.

Authors:  Matthias Anthuber; Alois Fuerst; Florian Elser; Rita Berger; Karl-Walter Jauch
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.585

View more
  6 in total

1.  Long-term oncologic outcome after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Ayman Agha; Volker Benseler; Matthias Hornung; Michael Gerken; Igors Iesalnieks; Alois Fürst; Matthias Anthuber; Karl-Walter Jauch; Hans J Schlitt
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  From Archiv für Klinische Chirurgie to Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery: 1860-2010.

Authors:  H G Beger
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Nerve-oriented mesorectal excision (NOME): autonomic nerves as landmarks for laparoscopic rectal resection.

Authors:  Norbert Runkel; Harald Reiser
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-05-11       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Different approaches for complete mobilization of the splenic flexure during laparoscopic rectal cancer resection.

Authors:  Volker Benseler; Matthias Hornung; Igors Iesalnieks; Philipp von Breitenbuch; Gabriel Glockzin; Hans J Schlitt; Ayman Agha
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-05-25       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  [Scientific evidence for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery].

Authors:  A Fürst; A Heiligensetzer; P Sauer; G Liebig-Hörl
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.955

6.  Transanal versus traditional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma.

Authors:  Simone Velthuis; Dorothee H Nieuwenhuis; T Emiel G Ruijter; Miguel A Cuesta; H Jaap Bonjer; Colin Sietses
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 4.584

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.