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_699_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
55 Мб
Скачать
338 Mesenteric considerations in reoperative abdominal surgery
Omental adhesions to small bowel
omentum
manner, as this would traumatize tissue and could worsen bleeding. An approach in this circumstance is to gently place a 4 × 4cm swab in the region and then tackle bleeding at a later point. e sponge may have a hemostatic and tam­ponade eect. If blood continues to ooze through the swab then the region may be overlain by hemostatic pads and sup­ported by an additional swab. If bleeding continues despite these measures then it must be directly controlled via suture ligation at that point, rather than later.
It is not dicult to damage the mesentery in reopera­tive intestinal surgery and so the surgeon must have opera­tive strategies to deal with the variable situations that arise. Perhaps the most important is avoidance of dissection close to the superior mesenteric artery. is requires that one have a clear understanding of mesenteric and mesocolic anatomy. Reoperative contexts in which this danger occur include any in which the small bowel mesentery was fully mobilized (i.e., as part of ileo-pouch anal anastomosis, and Crohn’s related resections).
Variations in surgical techniques have been demonstrated by several investigators. ese are associated with varia­tions in early and long-term postoperative outcome [9–13]. Recognition of the incidence of variation led to the develop­ment of the terms mesocolic, intramesocolic, and muscularis propria plane surgery [14]. e surgeon engaged in reopera­tive surgery needs to bear such variations in mind. Lack of recognition of mesofascial planes has, in the past, led sur­geons to dissect into the retroperitoneal planes. On reopera­tion, lack of recognition of this has in turn led surgeons to inadvertently damage the ureters or gonadal vessels.
Just as the retroperitoneal fat can be displaced into an abnormal location so too can the greater omentum (Figure25.8). Again, it becomes important to be able to dierentiate omental from mesenteric and retroperito­neal fat. Neomesothelialization can increase this diculty but almost always it is possible to safely and fully separate omental from mesenteric or retroperitoneal fat.
As can be seen earlier, the overall target in reoperative surgery is to achieve a complete and intact separation of the entire intestine and mesentery up to the fourth part of the duodenum. Only when this has been fully achieved should one commence any resectional component.
Reoperative surgery: Miscellaneous areas oftechnical difculty
Other areas of technical diculty include the distal le and right iliac fossa, the posterior surface of the bladder, and the anterior surface of the sacrum deep in the pelvis (Figure 25.9). Neomesothelialization in the leand right iliac fossa can be quite dense and particularly dicult to dissect through safely. As a result, it is important to practice the principles explained and emphasized earlier in order to prevent damage to the ureter and (in the anterior midline) to the dome of the bladder. Bladder injury may be inevi­table and as such one should have a strategy for managing these injuries (i.e., beyond the remit of the current volume).
Greater
Figure 25.8 The greater omentum is often adherent to underlying gastromesenteric structures. Separation of the greater omentum requires a careful adhesiolysis.
e anterior surface of the sacrum and the pelvic oor can present signicant technical challenges. Adhesions to these surfaces can be extensive, and dense, involving both intestine and associated mesentery. Excellent illumination, retraction, irrigation, and suction are of the utmost impor­tance in identifying mesofascial planes in these regions.
Reoperative surgery and postoperative complications
Reoperative colorectal surgery is oen carried out as part of management of postoperative complications. e commonest examples occur with a postoperative leak, or hematoma, or abscess formation. In these settings, the small bowel and mesentery, and omentum tend to coalesce around the pathology, generating a phlegmon, walling it o from the remainder of the peritoneal cavity. A crystallized view of mesenteric and peritoneal structure is again essen­tial, in order to (1) access to the pathology in question and (2) manage the pathology surgically. In order to gain access to the pathology, the surgeon must be able to dierentiate separate fatty compartments and tease these apart without disturbing structural integrity. Where fusion of separate structures is too dense, dissection should continue else­where, eventually coming back to the same region.
Troublesome bleeding must oen be tackled in the
reoperative context. For example, separation of the greater omentum othe mesentery or mesocolon is frequently fol­lowed by supercial bleeding from both surfaces. A further example occurs between apposed mesenteric structures
(a)
(b)
Adhesions
dome of bladder
Special considerations 339
Adhesions in
left iliac fossa
Dome of bladder
Adhesions to
Figure 25.9 (a, b) Adhesions also occur between the dome of the bladder (and/or uterus) and must be divided without entering the latter.
340 Mesenteric considerations in reoperative abdominal surgery
Incorrect plane surgery I
In
(b)
(e.g., when the small bowel mesentery adheres to the right surface of the mesosigmoid). Unfortunately, the inam­matory response leads to a weakening of the supercial mesothelium, which can become denuded and which again predisposes to bleeding from both mesenteric sur­faces. Asthis originates from supercial vessels (located within the mesenteric connective tissue lattice), it is gener­ally short lived.
In the setting of postoperative pelvic abscess following an appendectomy, one must proceed cautiously in sepa­rating anatomic components of the abscess. e goal is to fully unravel all adhesional complexes and to examine the mesentery in its entirety. is ensures that there are no residual interloop or intermesenteric abscesses. is proce­dure should only be conducted by a surgeon familiar with all aspects of mesenteric and mesocolic anatomy (intra- and extrapelvic) as it is necessary to mobilize all loops from the duodenojejunal exure to the pelvis.
Reoperative surgery: Finding oneself unexpectedly in the wrong plane
As the anatomy of the mesentery, associated fascia, and peritoneal reections have recently been claried, it is not surprising that past surgeons may have digressed into ret­roperitoneal planes during their dissection [14–18]. us, one should anticipate encountering planes that may not be familiar territory for the intestinal surgeon (in particular if one was not involved in the original operation) (Figures
25.10 and 25.11) [12–15]. Perhaps the commonest example
of this arises when, during the original operation, the sur­geon veered retrofascial in the dissection. In these cases, the muscle bers of the iliopsoas will be apparent at reopera­tion. is in turn should alarm the surgeon to the possibility of marked anatomic displacement of retroperitoneal struc­tures (i.e., the ureters).
Dissection in wrong plane
correct
plane
(a)
Correct
plane
Dissection in correct plane
Figure 25.10 Showing dissection in (a) incorrect and (b) correct plane surgery.
References 341
Co
(b)
Incorrect plane surgery II
t plane under
rrect
plane
(a)
Incorrect
plane
Neoperitoneum
over rectum
Correc
neo-mesothelium
Figure 25.11 Showing dissection in (a) incorrect and (b) correct plane surgery.
SUMMARY
Reoperative abdominal surgery mostly requires complete separation of the entire intestine and mesentery distal to the duodenojejunal exure. is in turn requires a crystallized understanding of mesenteric, peritoneal, and fascial anat­omy, and how these are altered in the reoperative context.
REFERENCES
1. Senagore, A.J., Can reoperative surgery be prot­able? Maximizing reimbursement. Clin Colon Rectal Surg, 2006. 19(4): 251–253.
2. Morris, A.M. etal., Reoperation as a quality indicator in colorectal surgery: A population-based analysis. Ann Surg, 2007. 245(1): 73–79.
342 Mesenteric considerations in reoperative abdominal surgery
3. Archampong, D. et al. Workload and surgeon’s specialty for outcome after colorectal cancer surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012. Issue 3. Art. No.: CD005391.
4. Aquina, C.T. et al., High volume improves outcomes: The argument for centralization of rectal cancer surgery. Surgery, 2016. 159(3): 736–748.
5. Yeo, H.L. et al., Surgeon annual and cumulative volumes predict early postoperative outcomes after rectal cancer resection. Ann Surg, 2016. [Epub ahead of print].
6. diZerega, G., Peritoneal Surgery. Springer, New York, 1999, pp. 117–131, 217–227.
7. Diamond, M.P. and M.L. Freeman, Clinical implications of postsurgical adhesions. Hum Reprod Update, 2001. 7(6): 567–576.
8. Davies, S.W. et al., A comparative analysis between laparoscopic and open adhesiolysis at a tertiary care center. Am Surg, 2014. 80(3): 261–269.
9. Joris, J.L. et al. Prevalence, characteristics and riskfactors of chronic postsurgical pain after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Retrospective analysis. EurJ Anaesthesiol, 2015. 32(10): 712–717.
10. Mallick, I.H. etal., Management and outcome of pouch-vaginal stulas after IPAA surgery. Dis Colon Rectum, 2014. 57(4): 490–496.
11. Fiscon, V. etal., Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s procedure. Updates Surg, 2014. 66(4): 277–281.
12. Genser, L. etal., Postoperative and long-term outcomes after redo surgery for failed colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: Retrospective analysis of 50 patients and review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum, 2013. 56(6): 747–755.
13. Fazio, V.W. etal., Ileal pouch anal anastomosis: Analysis of outcome and quality of life in 3707 patients. Ann Surg, 2013. 257(4): 679–685.
14. West, N.P. etal., Pathology grading of colon cancer surgical resection and its association with survival: A retrospective observational study. Lancet Oncol,
2008. 9(9): 857–865.
15. Coffey, J.C., Surgical anatomy and anatomic surgery—Clinical and scientic mutualism. Surgeon,
2013. 11(4): 177–182.
16. Coffey, J.C. etal., Terminology and nomencla­ture in colonic surgery: Universal application of a rule-based approach derived from updates on mesenteric anatomy. Tech Coloproctol, 2014. 18(9): 789–794.
17. Culligan, K. etal., The mesocolon: A prospective observational study. Colorectal Dis, 2012. 14(4): 421–428; discussion 428–430.
18. Culligan, K. etal., The mesocolon: A histological and electron microscopic characterization of the mesenteric attachment of the colon prior to and after surgical mobilization. Ann Surg, 2014. 260(6): 1048–1056.

Future directions

J. CALVIN COFFEY
26
Introduction 343 History 343 Anatomy 343 Embryology 343 Histology 344 Toldt’s fascia 344 Physiology 344 Pathology 344
If the facts don’t t the theory, change the facts.
Albert Einstein
INTRODUCTION
At this point in time the structure of the mesentery has been claried which means that it may now be approached in a rigorously systematic manner. is realization presents considerable opportunities in an array of basic and applied sciences. Perhaps the most exciting opportunity lies in the prospect of refreshing our approach to normality and disease in general. Already, the systematic evaluation of the mesentery has led to novel diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. is chapter will demonstrate the opportunities that lie ahead.
HISTORY
It is intriguing to note the discrepancy that occurred between surgical and anatomic approaches to the mesen­tery. While good-quality surgery relied on the principles of peritoneal, mesenteric, and fascial contiguity, anatomists argued in favor of mesenteric fragmentation and complex­ity. Even today, case reports continue to emerge describing the presence of a right and lemesocolon as anomalous. It is feasible this arose due to the eects of earlier preservation methodologies. It was also contributed to by the fact that the shape of the mesentery, once detached and disconnected
Radiology 345 Nomenclature 345 Surgical instrumentation 345 Total mesorectal excision 345 Gastroenterology 345 Education 346 Summary 346
from the abdominal wall, bears no resemblance to the shape it had in the undisturbed format. Notwithstanding past events the scientic and clinical community are now optimally positioned to re-explore the role of the mesenteric organ in general.
ANATOMY
Numerous questions can now be directly tackled based on clarications in mesenteric anatomy. For example, the distribution of the postganglionic enteric nervous system may be better characterized in the context of mesenteric contiguity. Up to the present, descriptions of the enteric nervous system are clear in relation to preganglionic neurons and the location of the three ganglia. However, descriptions of postganglionic neurons have always been lacking and for the most part, there are few informative descriptions detailing their anatomic course aer leaving the three major ganglia.
EMBRYOLOGY
e concept of peritoneal, mesenteric, and fascial contigu­ity is radically dierent to that of a complex and fragmented structure. e embryologic development of the mesentery and associated structures has to date been based on the con­cept of mesenteric discontinuity. Perhaps not surprisingly, the theories developed to explain the conceptual absence of a right and lemesocolon (i.e., the sliding and regression
343
344 Future directions
theories) were not generally taken up. Itnow remains to review mesenteric development based on their continuity in adulthood. is should rst focus on the mesentery itself, and thereaer the development of the fascial and peritoneal reection draped around it.
HISTOLOGY
Several intriguing questions arise here. Perhaps the most pressing is a histologic characterization of the zone of inter­section between the intestinal tract and the mesentery. Atthis zone, a connective tissue contiguity links both com­ponents of the intestine and mesentery. Cellular and molec­ular activities in this zone are likely to be highly signicant in normality and disease. In eect, this is the “hilum” of the intestine, where blood vessels, nerves, and lymphatic chan­nels enter or leave the intestine. It is at least several meters in length.
A further key question lies in the concept of tissue spe-
cialization. is refers to the adoption of specic and unique features by a tissue, in order to fulll a function. In the heart cardiomyocytes are specialized to permit contraction. In the nervous system, neurons are specialized to permit transmission of electrochemical signals along considerable distances. e question arises as to whether a cellular and tissue-type specialization also occurs within the mesentery. e occurrence of such a specialization would strengthen the argument in favor of designating the mesentery as an organ in itself.
Recent studies have demonstrated mesenteric mesothe-
lial plasticity. When mesenteric mesothelium is expanded exvivo, it can transform into a variety of mesenchymal cell types. is process may contribute invivo to adhesion for­mation. It may also contribute mesenchymal cells to the mesentery and intestinal tract in Crohn’s disease. ese are intriguing possibilities that should be further investigated.
e mesentery has dierent functions at dierent time
points, all of which are largely under-investigated. In the embryo, during development, it provides a cellular platform within which cellular specialization can occur in specic zones. Specialization in the ventral region of the mesen­tery leads to development of the liver. Specialization in mesentery adjacent the duodenum generates the pancreas. Specialization at the periphery of the mesentery results in formation of the intestine. is function of the mesentery should be further investigated with a few to determining the regional switches required for the formation of each.
In the adult, the mesentery functions as a major fat
depot. e body draws on this reserve for energy substrates required to maintain homeostasis. e capacity of this depot increases dramatically in the viscerally obese. In the adult, the mesentery maintains the intestine at a distance from the anatomic mainframe of the body, while simultaneously keeping it connected at the intestinal hilum. At the hilum, a constant exchange occurs between the intestine and mesen­tery. Recognition of the mesentery as a substantive structure in its own right will lead to increased investigation of both these functions, i.e., caloric depot and signal exchange.
TOLDT’S FASCIA
Several questions arise in relation to the fascia. It occurs wherever the mesentery is attached to the posterior abdominal wall. e mechanism by which it develops is not known. Striking macroscopic similarities with adhesions may shed light on the cellular and molecular mechanisms that underpin both. e aim of this chapter is to be highly speculative. In keeping with this, it has been suggested that mesenteric apposition and adherence attachment across Toldt’s fascia were important in the development of ver­tical, upright ambulation in Homo sapiens. Attachment means the colon and small intestine are maintained out of the pelvis when one adopts an upright position. Without mesenteric attachment both would fall into pelvis and function would be impaired, on standing upright.
PHYSIOLOGY
Increasing data points to a central physiologic role for the mesentery. It is uniquely positioned between the intestinal tract and the body proper. Here, it samples environmental cues and thereaer regulates local mucosal inammatory responses. In addition, it regulates systemic events includ­ing brinolytic, coagulation, and inammatory cascades.
PATHOLOGY
It is clear that numerous pathologic processes aect the mesentery and that it has the same vulnerability to vas­cular, inammatory, mesenchymal, and malignant pro­cesses as other organs and systems. It is unclear as to whether some pathologies could be considered primary or secondary mesenteropathies. For example, increas­ing evidence points to early development of mesenteric inammation in Crohn’s disease and its subsequent pro­gression to involve the adjacent intestinal tract. In unrav­eling the chronology of disease, it is feasible the interface between the intestinal tract and the mesentery could hold important clues and that cellular and molecular events at this anatomic junction could be important. It is also likely that the identication of a mesenchymal continuity between the mesentery and adjacent intestinal tract (i.e., the gastrointestinal-mesenteric axis) provides an impor­tant platform in the development of continuous disease processes. Moreover, the connective tissue platform also surrounds the adventitia of veins that drain the mesentery. Hence, there is a systemic connective tissue contiguity that may explain the extraintestinal manifestations of intesti­nal diseases or the intestinal manifestations of extraintes­tinal diseases.
Gastroenterology 345
RADIOLOGY
As clarication of mesenteric, fascial, and peritoneal struc­tures was a recent development, reappraisal of the radio­logic appearance of these was similarly recent. In keeping with this, it remains to recharacterize the radiologic appear­ance of all forms of intra-abdominal pathology distal to the duodenojejunal exure. is would aid in the preoperative staging of malignancy, planning of operative approaches (i.e., anticipation of multivisceral resections), as well as in the spatial interpretation of disease spread in conditions such as pancreatitis and diverticular disease. For example, in pancreatitis, uid collections oen track beneath the le mesocolon, from the lesser sac, and dissect the mesocolon othe underlying mesentery. In Crohn’s and diverticular disease, extramesenteric disease spread may point to an underlying stula. In colorectal cancer, lymphadenopathy within the mesocolon might prompt the introduction of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant context.
A further opportunity arises due to the anatomic central-
ity of the mesentery. e intestine, distal to the duodenoje­junal exure, is eectively centered on the mesentery. As a result, by commencing radiologic appraisals of the intestine with the mesentery, a composite picture of abdominal and pathological anatomy can be generated by the radiologist. is style of approach, the mesentery-rst, remains to be rigorously investigated.
NOMENCLATURE
Colorectal nomenclature is lacking in accuracy. In efforts to overcome this limitation, investigators have gone to lengths to devise an improved nomenclature. It is unlikely, given the complexity of colorectal surgery, and the components involved, that any one terminology can be all-encompassing. For example, proctosigmoid- ectomy is accurate but ignores the mesenteric compo­nent of resection. TME is also accurate, but ignores the intestinal component of resection. The term complete mesocolic excision ignores the fact that the small intes­tinal mesentery is continuous with the right mesocolon making a complete mesocolic excision technically chal­lenging. Notwithstanding these points, the nomencla­ture recently developed (total mesocolic excision, total mesorectal excision, and complete mesocolic excision) represent advancements in the overall systematization of colorectal surgery. Thisiscrucial if colorectal surgery is to be fully standardized. As a result, consensus should be sought in relation to the nomenclaturized to underpin the craft component of this surgical subspecialty.
In resectional colorectal surgery, most operative time is spent in accessing, then mobilizing and resecting the
associated mesentery. e length of time spent in conduct­ing this prompts the development of novel instrumentation and methodologies by which peritonotomy, mesofascial separation, and mesenterectomy could be more eciently achieved. Gas and hydrodissection are currently under investigation, as are spacer devices such as those used in laparoscopic hernia surgery. In gas dissection, the needle ordinarily used to decompress a gallbladder is inserted just beneath the peritoneal reection. e CO2 used to create a pneumoperitoneum is then rerouted through the needle. Subperitoneal planes are exaggerated and provide a use­ful road map for targeted peritonotomy. Achieving a more rapid and ecacious mesofascial separation remains a chal­lenge. It is feasible that radiologic cannulation of the meso­fascial interface may provide radiologists with a mechanism of mobilizing the mesentery, without surgeons having to do so. If this approach was combined with magnetic-based mobilization of the intestine, then many of the components of mesenteric-based surgery (i.e., peritonotomy, mesofascial and colofascial separation) may one day be achieved by a radiological and hence less invasive means than that pres­ently required.
TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION
Along most of its length, the mesorectum is well demarcated from surrounding structures in the pelvis. An exception occurs laterally and deep to the peritoneal reection. is region has been aptly termed the zone of adherence, or T zone, to denote the tangential apposition of autonomic nerves and blood vessels. Previously, this was referred to as the lateral ligament and it was long held this provided an anatomic means by which the middle rectal vessel could access the mesorectum. A review of the visual human project full color dataset fails to identify the zone of adherence and clearly demonstrates a circum­mesorectal plane separating the entirety of the mesorec­tum from adjacent structures. Given this discrepancy eorts should focus on further delineating the anatomy of this region.
GASTROENTEROLOGY
Technologies should be developed and incorporated in endoscopes to permit identication of the mesenteric pole of the colon. Endoscopic mesenteric mapping would pro­vide a trajectory that, if followed, could result in less dis­comfort for patients undergoing colonoscopy. Endoscopic mesenteric mapping would enable the localization of lesions along the circumference of the colon, and if cou­pled with longitudinal data, could enable pinpoint local­ization of lesions in the colon. Mapping of the mesentery would permit its transintestinal biopsy, similar to that conducted for the prostate, is could have diagnostic value in a variety of disease contexts.
346 Future directions
EDUCATION
In order to explain the mesenteric basis of intestinal surgery, a number of atlases required development. ese included cadaveric, digital, radiologic, operative (open and laparo­scopic) atlases and also an atlas based on appearances in the visual human project. Together with this book, these form the basis of a curriculum. e educational utility of this curriculum could be formally determined in undergraduate and postgraduate contexts. Target audiences would include all undergraduate medical students as well as postgraduate
trainees across surgical, radiologic, pathology-based, gas­troenterologic, and oncologic training programs.
SUMMARY
Clarication of mesenteric, peritoneal, and fascial structure has provided an array of opportunities across scientic and clinical disciplines. Collectively, these represent an oppor­tunity to refresh academic investigation in numerous elds and across many disease processes. e mesentery may now be systematically studied.

Appendix A: Operative templates

J. CALVIN COFFEY, D. PETER O LEARY, AND LEON G. WALSH
Everyone must row with the oars he has.
English proverb.
e following series is a list of descriptive templates for open, laparoscopic, and robotic colorectal surgery. e descrip­tions are based on the anatomy described in Chapter2 and the nomenclature in Chapter 9. e reader should also use
Chapters 13 (laparoscopic/robotic atlas) and 14 (open atlas)
for reference.
e operative templates provide a method of rigorously
standardizing the resection process, the recording of this, and the manner in which it is taught to future generations. e templates focus solely on the mesenteric component of the operation. Standard descriptions such as laparotomy, port placement, and obtaining pneumoperitoneum are not addressed.
TEMPLATE I: LAPAROSCOPIC/ROBOTIC RIGHT MESOCOLECTOMY
Procedure: e patient was placed in a slight head down position with the right shoulder up, and the small bowel and associated mesentery were reected othe right mesocolon to provide unimpeded mesocolic access.
An appendices epiploicae was grasped using a toothed
grasper placed through the right iliac fossa port. is was used to retract the cecum toward the anterior abdominal wall. e ileocolic adipovascular pedicle was brought under tension and thus exaggerated.
A peritonotomy was conducted through the mesothe-
lium overlying the interpedicular region on the ileal side of the ileocolic adipovascular pedicle. e plane between the overlying mesocolon and the underlying fascia (i.e., mesofascial plane) was entered and developed from medial to lateral. Mesofascial separation was continued by deect­ing the mesocolon anteriorly and Toldt’s fascia posteriorly.
e 30° lens was angled downward, and interpedicular
mesentery on the colonic side of the vascular pedicle was iden-
tied. A peritonotomy was started and the mesofascial plane entered again and developed. e plane of dissection on the ileal and the colonic side of the vascular pedicle were joined.
e adipovascular pedicle was skeletonized using the harmonic scalpel until the vessels contained within it were identied.
A stapling device was inserted through the 10/12mm port in the leupper quadrant. e blade jaw was placed posterior to the ileocolic vessel and the instrument red. einstrument was opened and withdrawn, thereby pro­viding unimpeded access to the mesofascial plane.
Mesofascial separation was continued as far laterally under the right mesocolon and thereaer under the right colon until the right peritoneal reection was encountered. Mesofascial separation was repeated toward the hepatic exure, thereby liing the mesenteric component of the exure othe retro­peritoneum. Continuing this process, the colic component of the exure was mobilized. is was continued until the hepa- tocolic reection of the hepatic exure was encountered.
e patient was then placed in a slight head up position, and the hepatocolic peritoneal reection was identied. e reection was placed under traction. is was achieved by grasping an appendices epiploicae at the hepatic exure and retracting the colic component of the hepatic exure toward the leiliac fossa. e hepatocolic peritoneal reection was then directly divided (i.e., peritonotomy) using a tissue seal­ant device and the peritonotomy was extended laterally to
the right peritoneal reection.
e right peritoneal reection was divided as far inferi-
orly as was possible. e patient was positioned in a head down position, and the ileocecal peritoneal reection over­lying the ileocecal mesenteric conuence and mesoappendix was identied. A peritonotomy here was continued laterally toward the divided margin of the right peritoneal reec­tion. e peritonotomy was next continued medially along the base of the small intestinal mesentery. e mesofascial plane was exposed in this manner, and separation of its components fully freed the small intestine and right meso­colon, as far proximally as the mesenteric root region.
A short transverse incision (approximately 4 cm) was made in the right ank, and the wound edges kept apart using a wound retractor. e specimen was exteriorized, and the terminal ileum divided between Kocher clamps as was the transverse colon in the region of the hepatic exure. Aer division of the intestinal tract, the proximal and distal mesenterotomies were completed and the mesenterectomy
347