Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection and hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis: a natural orifice specimen extraction technique

Functional outcomes after robotic or laparoscopic intersphincteric resection - An inverse probability weighting analysis

BACKGROUND

Functional outcomes after robotic and laparoscopic Intersphincteric resections (ISR) have not been studied adequately. We aimed to compare the bowel functions after robotic or laparoscopic ISR.

METHODS

Single-center, cross-sectional study of minimally invasive ISR. Functional outcomes were assessed on the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), Wexner incontinence scale, and the Kirwan grading. Baseline characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, T stage, tumour height, preoperative radiation, and anastomotic configuration) in the groups were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

Functional outcomes were assessed for 132 patients, 85 laparoscopic and 47 robotic ISR were performed. After IPTW, baseline characteristics were well balanced (mean deviation <0.1). In the weighted cohorts of laparoscopic and robotic ISR, major LARS was observed in 18.1% and 18.5% (p - 0.182) and major incontinence on the Wexner scale in 18.4% and 22.8% (p - 0.443), respectively. The Kirwan grades of incontinence were also similar between the groups (p - 0.794).

CONCLUSION

No differences in bowel functions on the LARS and incontinence scales between laparoscopic and robotic ISR were found in the present study.

Technical feasibility and perioperative outcome of laparoscopic resection rectopexy with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) and intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA)

Purpose

Laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy (LRR) is the most effective treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome but is associated with a higher postoperative morbidity compared to transanal approaches. Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) has been described as a promising technique to lower morbidity in colorectal cancer surgery. In this study, we analyze the technical challenges of adapting this technique to LRR and compare the perioperative results to the conventional laparoscopic technique with specimen extraction via minilaparotomy and extracorporeal anastomosis.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 45 patients who underwent laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy due to obstructive defecation syndrome at our institutions. From September 2020 to July 2021, we treated 17 consecutive patients with NOSE-LRR and compared the results to a historic cohort of 28 consecutive patients treated with conventional laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy plus minilaparotomy (LAP-LRR) for specimen extraction between January 2019 and July 2020. Assessed were patient- and disease-specific parameters, operative time, hospital and postoperative complications and subjective patient satisfaction after 6 months of follow-up.

Results

Both groups were comparable in terms of gender distribution, age, and comorbidities. The median operating time was similar and the perioperative morbidity was comparable in both groups. The length of stay in hospital was significantly shorter in the NOSE-LRR group (median 6 vs 8 days).

Conclusion

NOSE-LRR can be implemented safely, performed in a comparable operating time, and is associated with a comparable rate of postoperative complications. The technique offers the a potentially fast postoperative recovery compared to the conventional laparoscopic technique.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis

Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a recently developed minimally invasive surgery used in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. However, its safety and feasibility remain undiscussed and controversial. This study reported the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors pertaining to traditional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone against that of robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction to provide a discussion on this issue. 49 patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction and 49 matched patients who underwent conventional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection were systematically analyzed in this study. Regarding the baseline characteristics, after matching, no significant differences were observed between the natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) group and the robotic assisted rectal cancer resection (RARC) group. Patients in the NOSE group had a reduced visual analog scale (p < 0.001), passed flatus more quickly (p = 0.002) and suffered less surgical stress than those in the RARC group. Moreover, 4 complications were observed in the NOSE group and 7 complications in the RARC group with no significant difference (p = 0.337) in terms of complications. The two groups had a similar survival outcomes, where the 3-year overall survival (p = 0.738) and 3-year progression-free survival (p = 0.986) were all comparable between the two groups. Histological differentiation and T stage could be regarded as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival. Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgery for patients suffering from rectal cancer as it encompasses considerable several advantages. Histological differentiation and T stage may serve as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival.

Safety of coloanal/ileoanal anastomosis during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis: results of 20 consecutive patients

Objective

No studies to date have focused on the safety of coloanal/ileoanal anastomosis (CAIAA) in cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC), which is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. We herein present the outcomes of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) who underwent CAIAA.

Methods

We evaluated the prospectively collected data from 20 patients with PC who underwent CRS + HIPEC with respect to the primary disease, synchronous resections, intraoperative chemotherapy regimen, timing of protective ileostomy closure, and overall postoperative complications.

Results

Most patients underwent CRS + HIPEC and CAIAA for PC due to colorectal cancer. Coloanal anastomosis was performed in 15 (75%) patients, and J-pouch ileoanal anastomosis was performed in 5 (25%) patients. No anastomosis-related complications occurred in any patients who underwent CAIAA; however, one patient died of pulmonary embolism on postoperative day 7.

Conclusions

CAIAA is associated with serious complications even after performing benign colorectal surgery. However, it may be challenging for surgeons to simultaneously perform CAIAA in patients with PC who undergo CRS + HIPEC. We emphasize that this procedure can be safely performed with experienced surgical teams by using a multidisciplinary approach.

Laparoscopy-Assisted Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction to Treat Tumors of the Sigmoid Colon and Rectum: The Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of a Retrospective Study

Background: Few studies have assessed the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopically assisted natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) in patients with sigmoid colon and rectal tumors. We investigated the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted NOSE for tumors of the sigmoid colon and rectum. Methods: Ninety-eight patients with sigmoid colon and rectal tumors undergoing laparoscopic-assisted NOSE were included. The tumor was classified according to its distance from the anal verge: Group 1 (15-30 cm), Group 2 (5-15 cm), and Group 3 (≤5 cm). In Group 1 patients, a laparoscopic surgical specimen collection bag was used as a special transrectal device. In Group 2 patients, transanal endoscopic microsurgery device and specimen collection bag were used. In Group 3 patients, a Lone-Star retractor was used. The demographic characteristics and intra- and postoperative outcomes were measured. Results: In Group 1, 1 patient had respiratory disease and 1 had enterocolitis as short-term postoperative complications. One patient showed intestinal obstruction as a long-term postoperative complication. In Group 2, 2 patients had an ileus, 1 had an anastomotic leak, 2 had urinary retention, and 1 had respiratory disease as short-term complications. Only one patient had a long-term complication: anastomotic stenosis. In Group 3, short-term complications were present in 3 patients: 1 had hemorrhage, 1 had urinary retention, and 1 had respiratory disease. Long-term complications included one case of anastomotic stenosis and one of intestinal obstruction. Conclusions: NOSE is safe and cosmetically and theoretically superior to conventional laparoscopy when different devices are used according to the tumor's location.

Natural orifice specimen extraction in colorectal surgery: patient selection and perspectives

Over the past 30 years, colorectal surgery has evolved to include minimally invasive surgical techniques. Minimally invasive surgery is associated with reduced postoperative pain, reduced wound complications, earlier return of bowel function, and possibly shorter length of hospital stay. These benefits have been attributed to a reduction in operative trauma compared to open surgery. The need to extract the specimen in colorectal operations through a “mini-laparotomy” can negate many of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) is the opening of a hollow viscus that already communicates with the outside world, such as the vagina or distal gastrointestinal tract, in order to remove a specimen. The premise of this technique is to reduce the trauma required to remove the specimen with the expectation that this may improve outcomes. Reduction in postoperative analgesic use, quicker return of bowel function, and shorter length of hospital stay have been observed in colorectal operations with NOSE compared to conventional specimen extraction. While the feasibility of NOSE has been demonstrated in colorectal surgery, failures of this technique have also been described. Selection of patients who can successfully undergo NOSE needs further investigation. This review aims to guide surgeons in appropriately selecting patients for NOSE in colorectal surgery. Patient and specimen characteristics are reviewed in order to define patient populations in which NOSE is likely to be successful. Randomized trials comparing NOSE to conventional specimen extraction in colorectal surgery tend to enroll patients with favorable characteristics (body mass index <30, American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≤3, specimen diameter <6.5 cm) and demonstrate improved outcomes. Adopters of NOSE should restrict using this technique to the populations in which feasibility has been defined in the literature. Wider application to other populations, particularly patients with body mass index >30 and those with significant comorbidities, requires further study.

Left colon resection with transrectal specimen extraction: current status

BACKGROUND

Full laparoscopic left colectomy with transrectal specimen extraction is proposed as an improvement of the minimally invasive surgical technique. This paper reviews in detail the current status of left-sided colectomy and upper rectum resection with transrectal specimen extraction.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of all types of publications on colorectal resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE). We only included studies reporting on left colectomy, sigmoidectomy, and high anterior resection with transrectal specimen extraction (TRSE), excluding transanal (TASE), transvaginal, or transcolonic specimen extraction. Surgical techniques, patient characteristics, and outcomes were reviewed in detail.

RESULTS

Thirty-five papers reported on TRSE (2 randomized clinical trials, 7 case-matched series, 19 case series, 5 case reports, and 2 articles on surgical technique). We found a wide variety of innovative anastomotic and specimen extraction techniques. After excluding duplicates and papers reporting mixed TRSE and TASE results, outcomes in patients undergoing TRSE from 23 publications showed a conversion rate to conventional laparoscopy of 3.7% (21/559), overall morbidity 9.5% (53/559) [major in 2.9% (16/559), intra-abdominal infection in 2.1% (12/559)]. No mortality was reported. Postoperative anal incontinence was rarely reported. Several studies showed a decrease in postoperative pain and some in length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Colectomy with TRSE is feasible and seems safe in selected patients. Reported outcomes seem in general similar to conventional laparoscopic colectomy with a possible benefit in postoperative pain and length of hospital stay. Obvious selection bias and lack of high quality trials do not allow firm conclusions to be drawn.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Approach for Intersphincteric Resection-Results from a Tertiary Cancer Center in India

The study aims to compare open intersphincteric resection (OISR) with laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (LISR) in terms of short-term oncological and clinical outcomes. This is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database including all the patients of rectal cancer who underwent intersphincteric resection (ISR) at Tata Memorial Centre between 1st July 2013 and 30th November 2015. Short-term oncological parameters evaluated included circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM), distal resection margin involvement, and number of nodes harvested. Perioperative outcomes included blood loss, length of hospital stay and 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality. Chi-square test was used to compare the results between the two groups. Thirty nine cases of OISR and 34 cases of LISR were included in the study. Median BMI was higher in LISR group; otherwise, the two groups were comparable in all aspects. There were no conversions in LISR group. CRM involvement was seen in four patients (10%) in the conventional group compared to none in the LISR group. Median hospital stay was comparable between the two groups. Laparoscopic ISR is safe and can be performed with low conversion rate in selected group of patients.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

For low rectal cancer located < 5 cm from the anal verge, abdominoperineal resection (APR) with permanent sigmoid colostomy is usually used to ensure the R0 resection. Sphincter saving surgery has emerged in the last 20 years, and the introduction of intersphincteric resection (ISR) can successfully preserve the anal function and guarantee a radical tumor resection for patients with ultra-low lying tumors. Therefore, the use of APR has been consistently declining worldwide. Recently, a growing body of research on ISR has been reported. However, more evidence based results are needed to clarify some issues about ISR. In the current review, we discuss the indications for ISR and the oncological and functional outcomes following the procedure. Some technique issues of ISR are also discussed.