F Dumont1,2, E Thibaudeau3, L Benhaïm4, S Gouy5, D Labbe6, C Honoré4, D Goéré4. 1. Department of Digestive Oncological Surgery, West Oncologic Institute, Saint Herblain, France. frederic.dumont@ico.unicancer.fr. 2. Department of Oncological Surgery, Boulevard Jacques Monod, 44800, Saint Herblain, France. frederic.dumont@ico.unicancer.fr. 3. Department of Digestive Oncological Surgery, West Oncologic Institute, Saint Herblain, France. 4. Department of Digestive Oncological Surgery, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France. 5. Department of Gynaecologic Oncological Surgery, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France. 6. Department of Anaesthesiology, West Oncologic Institute, Saint Herblain, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extraperitoneal rectal dissection via a transanal approach facilitates the mesorectal dissection. The retroperitoneal approach for mesocolic excision may also offer some similar advantages. To complete the lymphadenectomy of extraperitoneal mesorectal resection, we developed an innovative approach for upper rectal and mesocolic excision via an exclusive retroperitoneal dissection using a single-port access at the site of the future stomy. METHODS: This study was a prospective pilot study and was conducted between 2013 and 2015 at two oncologic centers. Five consecutive patients, with ano-rectal cancer requiring permanent stoma, underwent this procedure. RESULTS: The bowel was never touched or mobilized to perform the lymphadenectomy, and no Trendelenburg was required. The median operative duration was 300 min (range 205-310). The quality of the surgical plane was classified as good (mesorectal) in the five patients. The median circumferential and distal margins were, respectively, 5 mm (range 1-20) and 20 mm (range 5-25). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 11 (range 5-18). No laparotomy or multiport laparoscopy was required. There was no death. Two patients had perineal wound dehiscence (one minor and one major). CONCLUSIONS: The mesocolic excision via a retroperitoneal approach is feasible, completes naturally the transanal mesorectal excision and may confer several advantages including no morbidity of small bowel manipulation or Trendelenburg position. Further studies are required to analyze this approach.
BACKGROUND: The extraperitoneal rectal dissection via a transanal approach facilitates the mesorectal dissection. The retroperitoneal approach for mesocolic excision may also offer some similar advantages. To complete the lymphadenectomy of extraperitoneal mesorectal resection, we developed an innovative approach for upper rectal and mesocolic excision via an exclusive retroperitoneal dissection using a single-port access at the site of the future stomy. METHODS: This study was a prospective pilot study and was conducted between 2013 and 2015 at two oncologic centers. Five consecutive patients, with ano-rectal cancer requiring permanent stoma, underwent this procedure. RESULTS: The bowel was never touched or mobilized to perform the lymphadenectomy, and no Trendelenburg was required. The median operative duration was 300 min (range 205-310). The quality of the surgical plane was classified as good (mesorectal) in the five patients. The median circumferential and distal margins were, respectively, 5 mm (range 1-20) and 20 mm (range 5-25). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 11 (range 5-18). No laparotomy or multiport laparoscopy was required. There was no death. Two patients had perineal wound dehiscence (one minor and one major). CONCLUSIONS: The mesocolic excision via a retroperitoneal approach is feasible, completes naturally the transanal mesorectal excision and may confer several advantages including no morbidity of small bowel manipulation or Trendelenburg position. Further studies are required to analyze this approach.
Authors: E Kapiteijn; C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H Putter; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; L Pahlman; B Glimelius; J H van Krieken; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: H J Mindell; J F Mastromatteo; K W Dickey; N V Sturtevant; W P Shuman; C L Oliver; K L Leister; R A Barth Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: T C Hall; J S Stephenson; M J Jones; W S Ngu; M A Horsfield; A Rajesh; A R Dennison; G Garcea Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 3.452