OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of transanal single port surgery in 15 consecutive patients. BACKGROUND: The current method of choice for local resection of rectal tumors is transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), a complex and expensive technique. Single access surgery is easy, relatively cheap, and more broadly applied in laparoscopy. Evidence regarding transanal use of single access ports is scarce. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a rectal lesion otherwise eligible for TEM were operated using the Single Site Laparoscopic Access System (SSL) and standard laparoscopic instrumentation. Patient, lesion and procedure characteristics, hospitalization length, and peroperative and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were planned for single port transanal surgery. In 2 patients (13.3%), intrarectal retractor expansion failed, and conversion to conventional TEM was necessary. The remaining 13 patients were successfully operated. Rectal lesions (mean diameter 36 mm, standard deviation ±25 mm, mean distance from the dentate line 6 cm [±4.5]) included adenoma in 7 patients, T1 adenocarcinoma in 1, T2 adenocarcinoma in 3, carcinoid in 1, and fibrosis only in 1 (after prior polypectomy). All patients were operated in lithotomy position. Resections were en bloc, full thickness, and had complete margins. Resection specimens measured 65 (±35) × 52 (±24) mm. Twelve rectal defects were sutured. One peroperative pneumoscrotum occurred. Mean operating time was 57 (±39) minutes. One patient presented with postoperative hemorrhage, treated conservatively (postoperative morbidity rate 7.7%). Mean hospitalization lasted 2.5 days (±2.7). CONCLUSIONS: Transanal single port surgery via the SSL is feasible and safe and may become a promising alternative to TEM.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of transanal single port surgery in 15 consecutive patients. BACKGROUND: The current method of choice for local resection of rectal tumors is transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), a complex and expensive technique. Single access surgery is easy, relatively cheap, and more broadly applied in laparoscopy. Evidence regarding transanal use of single access ports is scarce. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a rectal lesion otherwise eligible for TEM were operated using the Single Site Laparoscopic Access System (SSL) and standard laparoscopic instrumentation. Patient, lesion and procedure characteristics, hospitalization length, and peroperative and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were planned for single port transanal surgery. In 2 patients (13.3%), intrarectal retractor expansion failed, and conversion to conventional TEM was necessary. The remaining 13 patients were successfully operated. Rectal lesions (mean diameter 36 mm, standard deviation ±25 mm, mean distance from the dentate line 6 cm [±4.5]) included adenoma in 7 patients, T1 adenocarcinoma in 1, T2 adenocarcinoma in 3, carcinoid in 1, and fibrosis only in 1 (after prior polypectomy). All patients were operated in lithotomy position. Resections were en bloc, full thickness, and had complete margins. Resection specimens measured 65 (±35) × 52 (±24) mm. Twelve rectal defects were sutured. One peroperative pneumoscrotum occurred. Mean operating time was 57 (±39) minutes. One patient presented with postoperative hemorrhage, treated conservatively (postoperative morbidity rate 7.7%). Mean hospitalization lasted 2.5 days (±2.7). CONCLUSIONS: Transanal single port surgery via the SSL is feasible and safe and may become a promising alternative to TEM.
Authors: S Atallah; G Nassif; H Polavarapu; T deBeche-Adams; J Ouyang; M Albert; S Larach Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Robert Christie; Jeremy Sugrue; Saleh Eftaiha; Jan Kaminski; Tareq Kamal; John Park; Leela Prasad; Slawomir Marecik Journal: J Vis Surg Date: 2016-07-15
Authors: S H E M Clermonts; Y T van Loon; A H W Schiphorst; D K Wasowicz; D D E Zimmerman Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 2.571