S W Bell1,2, A G Heriot3,4, S K Warrier5,6,3, C K Farmer5,6, A R L Stevenson7,8, I Bissett9, J C Kong3,4, M Solomon10. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. swbell@ccgroup.net.au. 2. Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. swbell@ccgroup.net.au. 3. Division of Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 7. Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 8. Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 9. Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand. 10. Institute of Academic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technological developments have allowed advances in minimally invasive techniques for total mesorectal excision such as laparoscopy, robotics, and transanal surgery. There remains an ongoing debate about the safety, benefits, and appropriate clinical scenarios for which each technique is employed. The aim of this study was to provide a panel of expert opinion on the role of each surgical technique currently available in the management of rectal cancer using a modified Delphi method. METHODS: Surveys were designed to explore the key patient- and tumor-related factors including clinical scenarios for determining a surgeon's choice of surgical technique. RESULTS: Open surgery was favoured in obese patients with an extra-peritoneal tumor and a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) or T4 tumor when a restorative resection was planned. Laparoscopy was favoured in non-obese males and females, in both intra- and extra-peritoneal tumors with a clear CRM. Robotic surgery was most commonly offered to obese patients when the CRM was clear and if an abdominoperineal resection was planned. Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was preferred in male patients with a mid or low rectal cancer, particularly when obese. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery/transanal minimally invasive surgery local excision was only offered to frail patients with small, early stage tumors. CONCLUSIONS: All surgical techniques for rectal cancer dissection have a role and may be considered appropriate. Some techniques have advantages over others in certain clinical situations, and the best outcomes may be achieved by considering all options before applying an individualised approach to each clinical situation.
BACKGROUND: Technological developments have allowed advances in minimally invasive techniques for total mesorectal excision such as laparoscopy, robotics, and transanal surgery. There remains an ongoing debate about the safety, benefits, and appropriate clinical scenarios for which each technique is employed. The aim of this study was to provide a panel of expert opinion on the role of each surgical technique currently available in the management of rectal cancer using a modified Delphi method. METHODS: Surveys were designed to explore the key patient- and tumor-related factors including clinical scenarios for determining a surgeon's choice of surgical technique. RESULTS: Open surgery was favoured in obesepatients with an extra-peritoneal tumor and a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) or T4 tumor when a restorative resection was planned. Laparoscopy was favoured in non-obese males and females, in both intra- and extra-peritoneal tumors with a clear CRM. Robotic surgery was most commonly offered to obesepatients when the CRM was clear and if an abdominoperineal resection was planned. Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was preferred in male patients with a mid or low rectal cancer, particularly when obese. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery/transanal minimally invasive surgery local excision was only offered to frail patients with small, early stage tumors. CONCLUSIONS: All surgical techniques for rectal cancer dissection have a role and may be considered appropriate. Some techniques have advantages over others in certain clinical situations, and the best outcomes may be achieved by considering all options before applying an individualised approach to each clinical situation.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Kevin F Birbeck; Christopher P Macklin; Nicholas J Tiffin; Wendy Parsons; Michael F Dixon; Nicholas P Mapstone; Cedric R Abbott; Nigel Scott; Paul J Finan; David Johnston; Philip Quirke Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Philippe Rouanet; Anne Mourregot; Chebl Christian Azar; Sébastien Carrere; Marian Gutowski; François Quenet; Bernard Saint-Aubert; Pierre-Emmanuel Colombo Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.585
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
Authors: Martijn Hgm van der Pas; Eva Haglind; Miguel A Cuesta; Alois Fürst; Antonio M Lacy; Wim Cj Hop; Hendrik Jaap Bonjer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Peter J Hewett; Randall A Allardyce; Philip F Bagshaw; Christopher M Frampton; Francis A Frizelle; Nicholas A Rieger; J Shona Smith; Michael J Solomon; Jacqueline H Stephens; Andrew R L Stevenson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Antonio M de Lacy; David W Rattner; Cedric Adelsdorfer; Marta M Tasende; María Fernández; Salvadora Delgado; Patricia Sylla; Graciela Martínez-Palli Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-03-22 Impact factor: 4.584