Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5193_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
65 Мб
Скачать
28 Low Anterior Resection
Fig. 28.2 Initial peritoneal incision and dissection of the aorta­mesenteric window
395
Fig. 28.3 Demonstration of the inferior mesenteric plexus
(Fig.28.5). The dissection process continued along the embryological planes over Gerota’s and Toldt’s fasciae (Fig.28.6), with careful preservation of the left ureter, gonadal vessels, and autonomic nerves (Fig.28.7). During the medial dissection, the superior hypogastric plexus, left ureter, and gonadal vessels were exposed and deliberately preserved (Fig. 28.8). This approach ensures meticulous dissection while safeguarding critical anatomical structures, contributing to the overall success and safety of the procedure.
After completing the abdominal portion, attention was directed to the pelvis. Initially, the peritoneal reection just below the sacral promontory was incised, and the rectum was mobilized posteriorly through sharp dissection in the “holy plane”
396
Fig. 28.4 Dissection and ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery
C. Benlice and B. Baca
Fig. 28.5 Dissection and ligation of the inferior mesenteric vein
28 Low Anterior Resection
Fig. 28.6 Demonstration of the Toldt’s line during medial to lateral dissection
Fig. 28.7 Demonstration of the left ureter and gonadal vessels during medial to lateral dissection
397
Fig. 28.8 Demonstration of the superior hypogastric plexus at the level of sacral promontorium
(Fig.28.9). In a medial-to-lateral dissection, the right and left hypogastric nerves were sequentially identied at the level of the pelvic brim (Fig.28.10). During the initial medial dissection at the sacral promontory level, there exists a risk of injuring the hypogastric nerves if working in the incorrect anatomical plane. The robot’s magnication, stable traction, and vaporization from the monopolar scissors play
398
C. Benlice and B. Baca
Fig. 28.9 Demonstration of the holy plane and posterior wall dissection
Fig. 28.10 Demonstration of the right and left hypogastric nerve
28 Low Anterior Resection
Fig. 28.11 Demonstration of the Waldeyer’s fascia
399
crucial roles in identifying the correct plane and minimizing such risks. Posterior pelvic dissection is then performed along the fascia propria recti, exposing the holy plane at the level of the sacral promontory, which encompasses the loose areolar connective tissue between the rectal proper fascia and the prehypogastric nerve fas­cia (Fig.28.11).
Dissecting the posterior mesorectum rst provides the surgeon with better con­trol over the mesorectum, facilitating subsequent lateral dissection. The right lateral side of the mesorectum was then mobilized, followed by the mobilization of the left side. Conducting posterior dissection all the way down to the pelvic oor and leva­tor ani muscles is crucial for preventing injury to the inferior hypogastric plexus during lateral dissection (Fig.28.11). Once adequate mobilization is achieved bilat­erally, attention shifts to the anterior mesorectum. Anterior dissection commences by incising the anterior peritoneal reection. The anterior dissection plane is exposed, and the dissection proceeds posteriorly to the seminal vesicle or the vagina. Stable traction with the third robotic arm facilitates more convenient and easier anterior dissection. The magnied robotic view enhances the surgeon’s ability to determine the correct surgical plane. This systematic approach ensures precise dis­section and minimizes the risk of complications during the procedure. If the tumor is located anteriorly, the dissection proceeds in front of Denonvilliers’ fascia. Nerve bers from the pelvic plexus traverse underneath the seminal vesicles to reach the bladder. In men, Denonvilliers’ fascia is identied at the level of the seminal vesicle, located behind the seminal vesicles and in front of the rectum. Dissecting anterior to Denonvilliers’ fascia poses a signicant risk of nerve injury (Fig. 28.12). Conversely, if the tumor is posterior, the optimal dissection plane is posterior to Denonvilliers’ fascia, ensuring a safe plane for nerve preservation. For continued dissection, an avascular plane can be created between the mesorectum and the neu­rovascular bundles to prevent injury. Excessive traction of the seminal vesicle to
400
Fig. 28.12 Demonstration of the Denonvilliers’ fascia
Fig. 28.13 Demonstration
of the neurovascular bundle of the Walsh
C. Benlice and B. Baca
establish the operative eld may result in nerve injury. Stable traction and the use of multi-angled instruments contribute to effective and safer dissection. The neurovas­cular bundles travel through the 2 o’clock and 10 o’clock directions, extending toward the genitalia (Fig.28.13). A U-shaped incision in the anterior rectum may be employed to prevent nerve damage. The magnied robotic view enhances the clear identication and tracking of neurovascular bundles compared to laparoscopy or
28 Low Anterior Resection
401
naked vision. Additionally, stable traction and countertraction help prevent exces­sive traction or avulsion damage to the nerves.
During posterior and lateral dissection, meticulous care is essential to preserve both the right and left hypogastric nerves and the inferior hypogastric plexus, respectively. The inferior hypogastric plexus is particularly susceptible to injury during posterolateral and anterolateral mesorectal dissection. The mesorectal dis­section is then continued down to the pelvic oor. Upon completing the full mobili­zation of the mesorectum, a digital rectal examination is performed by the assistant surgeon to determine the appropriate level of rectal transection. A useful estimate of the transection level is achieved by placing the tip of a nger in the anus with the proximal interphalangeal joint at the level of the anal verge. The rectum is divided using a robotic stapler(s) with a green cartridge introduced through the 12mm tro­car. Once adequate mobilization is achieved, the rectum is transected with the robotic stapler. Subsequently, end-to-end colorectal anastomosis is accomplished, and a negative air leak test is conducted to ensure the integrity of the anastomosis.

Conclusion

The adoption of a fully robotic approach in pelvic rectal surgery aims to address technical challenges, offering improved ergonomics and facilitating the intricate task of preserving autonomic nerves within the conned space of the pelvis. By eliminating technical difculties, which are a distinctive feature of the fully robotic approach, not only does it streamline the surgical process, but it also enhances the surgeon’s ability to navigate the complexities of pelvic anatomy with precision. The superior ergonomics provided by robotic systems contribute to reducing physical strain on the surgeon, enabling sustained focus and dexterity throughout the proce­dure. Additionally, the advanced capabilities of robotic technology empower sur­geons to navigate and preserve autonomic nerves in the inherently narrow connes of the pelvis, representing a signicant advancement in optimizing outcomes and preserving functional aspects crucial for patient well-being. As surgical innovation continues to advance, ongoing scientic exploration is anticipated to yield further insights into the benets of such progress. Despite inherent limitations related to cost and potential operative time, there is promise in robotic rectal surgery. There is optimism that ongoing learning and renement in the eld will effectively address these challenges.
State None.
Conicts of Interest and Source of Funding The authors have no conicts of interest including
relevant nancial interests, activities, relationships, and afliations.
402
C. Benlice and B. Baca

References

1. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS.Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colec­tomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1991;1:144.
2. De Jesus JP, Valadão M, de Castro Araujo RO, Cesar D, Linhares E, Iglesias AC.The circum­ferential resection margins status: a comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total meso­rectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO). 2016;42(6):808–12.
3. Carlsen E, Schlichting E, Guldvog I, Johnson E, Heald RJ. Effect of the introduction of total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1998; https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1365- 2168.1998.00601.x.
4. Emile SH, Horesh N, Freund MR, Garoufalia Z, Gefen R, Silva-Alvarenga E, etal. Trends in the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of rectal adenocarcinoma in the US from 2004 to 2019: a national cancer database analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9(3):355–64.
5. Bosio RM, Pigazzi A.Emerging and evolving technology in Colon and Rectal Surgery. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2015;28(3):152–7.
6. Nezhat C, Vu M, Vang N, Chavali KS, Nezhat A.The journey from video laparoscopy to robotic and digital surgery. In: Robotic surgery; 2021. p.3–10.
7. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Balestracci T, etal. Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg. 2003;138(7):777–84.
8. Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, etal. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1356–63.
9. Bilgin IA, Bas M, Aytac E, Benlice C, Esen E, Kirbiyik E, etal. Operative and long-term onco­logical outcomes in patients undergoing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Int J Med Robot Comput Assisted Surg. 2020;16(6):1–10.
10. Baek SJ, Kim SH, Cho JS, Shin JW, Kim J.Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a cost analysis from a single institute in Korea. World J Surg. 2012;36:2722–9.
11. Katsuno H, Hanai T, Masumori K, Koide Y, Ashida K, Matsuoka H, etal. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: operative technique and review of the literature. J Anus Rectum Colon. 2020;4(1):14–24.
12. Huang YJ, Kang YN, Huang YM, Wu ATH, Wang W, Wei PL.Effects of laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: an update systematic review and meta­analysis of randomized controlled trials. Asian J Surg. 2019;42(6):657–66.
13. Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, etal. Effect of robotic­assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1569–80.
14. Kim MJ, Park SC, Park JW, Chang HJ, Kim DY, Nam BH, etal. Robot-assisted versus laparo­scopic surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2018;267(2):243–51.
15. Ackerman SJ, Daniel S, Baik R, Liu E, Mehendale S, Tackett S, etal. Comparison of com­plication and conversion rates between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer: which patients and providers could benet most from robotic-assisted surgery? J Med Econ. 2018;21(3):254–61.
16. Zhang X, Wei Z, Bie M, Peng X, Chen C.Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:5601–14.
17. D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, Pende V, Lucandri G, Mazzocchi P, etal. Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1887–95.
18. Baek JH, McKenzie S, Garcia-Aguilar J, Pigazzi A.Oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2010;251(5):882–6.
19. Sun Y, Xu H, Li Z, Han J, Song W, Wang J, etal. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14:1–8.
28 Low Anterior Resection
20. Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Flynn J, Patil S, Widmar M, Quezada-Diaz F, Lynn P, et al. Comparing outcomes of robotic versus open mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. BJS Open. 2021;5(6):zrab135.
21. Lim S, Nagai Y, Nozawa H, Kawai K, Sasaki K, Murono K, et al. Surgical outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open low anterior resection after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with advanced lower rectal cancer. Surg Today. 2023;53(1):109–15.
22. Yao Q, Sun QN, Ren J, Wang LH, Wang DR.Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conven­tional laparoscopic surgery for mid–low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149(16):15207–17.
23. Wee IJY, Kuo L, Ngu JC.Urological and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic sur­gery for rectal cancer: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Int J Med Robot Comput Assisted Surg. 2021;17(1):1–8.
24. Gavriilidis P, Wheeler J, Spinelli A, de Angelis N, Simopoulos C, Di Saverio S.Robotic vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers: has a paradigm change occurred? A systematic review by updated meta-analysis. Color Dis. 2020;22(11):1506–17.
25. Feng Q, Yuan W, Li T, Tang B, Jia B, Zhou Y, etal. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised con­trolled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;7(11):991–1004.
26. Hoshino N, Sakamoto T, Hida K, Sakai Y. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: an overview of systematic reviews with quality assessment of current evidence. Surg Today. 2019;49:556–70.
27. Kim JC, Yu CS, Lim SB, Park IJ, Kim CW, Yoon YS.Comparative analysis focusing on surgical and early oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopy-assisted, and robot-assisted approaches in rectal cancer patients. Int J Color Dis. 2016;31:1179–87.
28. Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George V, Abbas M, et al. Effect of laparoscopic- assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1346–55.
29. Oshio H, Konta T, Oshima Y, Yunome G, Okazaki S, Kawamura I, etal. Learning curve of robotic rectal surgery using risk-adjusted cumulative summation: a 5-year institutional experi­ence. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2023;408(1):89.
30. Jiménez-Rodríguez RM, Rubio-Dorado-Manzanares M, Díaz-Pavón JM, Reyes-Díaz ML, Vazquez-Monchul JM, Garcia-Cabrera AM, etal. Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer sur­gery: current state of affairs. Int J Color Dis. 2016;31:1807–15.
31. Aghayeva A, Baca B.Robotic sphincter saving rectal cancer surgery: a learning curve analysis. Int J Med Robot Comput Assisted Surg. 2020;16(4):e2112.
32. Burghgraef TA, Sikkenk DJ, Verheijen PM, El Moumni M, Hompes R, Consten ECJ.The learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a sys­tematic review. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(9):6337–60.
33. Park EJ, Kim CW, Cho MS, Kim DW, Min BS, Baik SH, etal. Is the learning curve of robotic low anterior resection shorter than laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer?: a comparative analysis of clinicopathologic outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surger­ies. Medicine. 2014;93(25):e109.
34. Foo CC, Law WL.The learning curve of robotic-assisted low rectal resection of a novice rectal surgeon. World J Surg. 2016;40:456–62.
35. Kolehmainen CSJ, Ukkonen MT, Tomminen T, Helavirta IM, Laukkarinen JM, Hyöty M, etal. Short learning curve in transition from laparoscopic to robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery: a prospective study from a Finnish Tertiary Referral Centre. J Robot Surg. 2023;17(5):2361–7.
36. Zaepfel S, Marcovei R, Fernandez-de-Sevilla E, Sourrouille I, Honore C, Gelli M, etal. Robotic-assisted surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a long but safe learning curve. J Robot Surg. 2023;17:1–10.
37. Panteleimonitis S, Popeskou S, Aradaib M, Harper M, Ahmed J, Ahmad M, et al. Implementation of robotic rectal surgery training programme: importance of standardisation and structured training. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2018;403:749–60.
403
404
38. Younes MM, Larkins K, To G, Burke G, Heriot A, Warrier S, etal. What are clinically relevant performance metrics in robotic surgery? A systematic review of the literature. J Robot Surg. 2023;17(2):335–50.
39. Shu D, Cai Z, Yin X, Zheng M, Li J, Yang X, etal. Structured training curricula for robotic colorectal surgery in China: does laparoscopic experience affect training effects? J Gastrointest Oncol. 2023;14(1):198.
40. Luca F, Valvo M, Ghezzi TL, Zuccaro M, Cenciarelli S, Trovato C, etal. Impact of robotic surgery on sexual and urinary functions after fully robotic nerve-sparing total mesorectal exci­sion for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2013;257(4):672–8.
41. Liu Y, Liu M, Lei Y, Zhang H, Xie J, Zhu S, etal. Evaluation of effect of robotic versus laparo­scopic surgical technology on genitourinary function after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Int J Surg. 2022;104:106800.
42. Panteleimonitis S, Ahmed J, Harper M, Parvaiz A.Critical analysis of the literature inves­tigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;8(11):744.
43. Luca F, Craigg DK, Senthil M, Selleck MJ, Babcock BD, Reeves ME, etal. Sexual and urinary outcomes in robotic rectal surgery: review of the literature and technical considerations. Updat Surg. 2018;70:415–21.
C. Benlice and B. Baca
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана