Literature DB >> 29850949

The Estimate of the Impact of Coccyx Resection in Surgical Field Exposure During Abdominal Perineal Resection Using Preoperative High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance.

Guilherme Pagin São Julião1, Cinthia D Ortega2, Bruna Borba Vailati1, Francisco A B Coutinho3, Gustavo Rossi4, Angelita Habr-Gama1,5, Laura Melina Fernandez1, Sérgio Eduardo Alonso Araújo6, Gina Brown7, Rodrigo Oliva Perez8,9,10.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the improvement in surgical exposure by removal of the coccyx, during abdomino-perineal resection (APR), in rectal cancer patients.
METHODS: Retrospective study of 29 consecutive patients with rectal cancer was carried out. Using MR T2 sagittal series, the solid angle was estimated using the angle determined by the anterior resection margin and the tip of coccyx (no coccyx resection) or the tip of last sacral vertebra (coccyx resection). The solid angle provides an estimate of the tridimensional surface area provided by an original angle resulting in the best estimate of the surgeon's view/exposure to the critical dissecting point of choice (anterior rectal wall). The difference ("Gain") in surgical field exposure by removal of the coccyx was compared by the solid angle variation between the two estimates (with and without the coccyx).
RESULTS: Routine removal of the coccyx determines an average 42% (95% CI 27-57%) gain in surgical field exposure area facing the anterior rectal wall at the level of the prostate/vagina by the surgeon. Fifteen (51%) patients had ≥30% (median) estimated gain in surgical field exposure by coccygectomy. There was no association between BMI, age or gender and estimated gain in surgical field exposure area.
CONCLUSIONS: Routine removal of the coccyx during APR may result in an average increase in 42% in surgical field exposure during APR's perineal dissection. Precise estimation of surgical field exposure gain by removal of the coccyx may be predicted by MR sagittal series for each individual patient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29850949     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-018-4683-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  15 in total

1.  Extralevator Abdominal Perineal Excision Versus Standard Abdominal Perineal Excision: Impact on Quality of the Resected Specimen and Postoperative Morbidity.

Authors:  Angelita Habr-Gama; Guilherme P São Julião; Adrian Mattacheo; Luiz Felipe de Campos-Lobato; Edgar Aleman; Bruna B Vailati; Joaquim Gama-Rodrigues; Rodrigo Oliva Perez
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection.

Authors:  Iris D Nagtegaal; Cornelius J H van de Velde; Corrie A M Marijnen; Jan H J M van Krieken; Philip Quirke
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-12-20       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer.

Authors:  N P West; C Anderin; K J E Smith; T Holm; P Quirke
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 6.939

4.  Prone or lithotomy positioning during an abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer results in comparable oncologic outcomes.

Authors:  Luiz Felipe de Campos-Lobato; Luca Stocchi; David W Dietz; Ian C Lavery; Victor W Fazio; Matthew F Kalady
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.585

5.  Techniques and trouble-shooting in high spatial resolution thin slice MRI for rectal cancer.

Authors:  G Brown; I R Daniels; C Richardson; P Revell; D Peppercorn; M Bourne
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  A prospective multicenter clinical study of extralevator abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Jia Gang Han; Zhen Jun Wang; Qun Qian; Yong Dai; Zhi Quan Zhang; Jin Shan Yang; Fei Li; Xiao Bin Li
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.585

7.  Preoperative high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging can identify good prognosis stage I, II, and III rectal cancer best managed by surgery alone: a prospective, multicenter, European study.

Authors:  Fiona G M Taylor; Philip Quirke; Richard J Heald; Brendan Moran; Lennart Blomqvist; Ian Swift; David J Sebag-Montefiore; Paris Tekkis; Gina Brown
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Magnetic resonance imaging following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer.

Authors:  G P São Julião; C D Ortega; B B Vailati; A Habr-Gama; L M Fernandez; J Gama-Rodrigues; S E Araujo; R O Perez
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.788

9.  Application of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision in locally advanced low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Yan-Lei Wang; Yong Dai; Jin-Bo Jiang; Hui-Yang Yuan; San-Yuan Hu
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 2.628

10.  Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer--Extensive Surgery to Be Used With Discretion Based on 3-Year Local Recurrence Results: A Registry-based, Observational National Cohort Study.

Authors:  Mattias Prytz; Eva Angenete; David Bock; Eva Haglind
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 12.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.