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_832_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
39 Мб
Скачать
334
https://t.me/med1917
The surgeon stands at the patient’s right lower side with the assistant to their left and scrub nurse to their right. The monitors are placed in front of the team at eye level. Port placement is similar to the laparoscopic technique described above, with a GelPort placed through a larger lower abdominal or Pfannenstiel incision. As in the laparoscopic technique, this incision will be used for specimen extraction. The use of a Pfannenstiel incision is associated with improved cosmesis with a lower incidence of wound infections and hernias [32]. It also allows for more working space between the hand and the instruments. After access to the abdominal cavity is obtained and a wound protector with GelPort cap is placed, a Trocar can be inserted through the GelPort in order to insufate the abdomen. If the GelPort is placed within a midline incision, the remaining ports are placed in positions similarly to those described above in the purely laparoscopic approach. If a Pfannenstiel inci­sion is used instead, the additional ports should triangulate around the larger inci­sion. The major steps of the operation, whether using a lateral-to-medial or a medial-to-lateral approach, also remain the same as described for conventional laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy.
M. Unuvar and R. L. Hoffman
9 Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Sigmoid Colectomy
Robotic surgery is very appealing for surgical subspecialties like colorectal that deal with pelvic pathology. Its many advantages include better visualization, improved ergonomics, and enhanced overall dexterity. Disadvantages include lack of haptic feedback, longer operative times, and increased cost. The clinical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal procedures have overall been similar [33]. Utilization of the robot is at the discretion of the surgeon.
Patient’s undergoing robotic sigmoid colectomy are again positioned in low lithotomy. There are multiple factors to consider when deciding on port placement for any robotic-assisted procedure. These include patient body habitus, surgeon preferences, skill, and comfort level, and the model of Da Vinci robot being used (Xi or Si). There are four robotic ports used, typically two for the left hand, one for the right hand, and one for the camera port, although this can also vary by surgeon. The patient should be positioned into Trendelenburg with slight left side up before the robot is docked. The steps of the operation are fundamentally the same as the laparoscopic approaches described above but with the use of distinct robotic instru­mentation. The robot has an additional benet of assessing perfusion of a new anas­tomosis in real time using indocyanine green (ICG) which is injected intravenously and paired with the uorescence imaging (“Firey”) capabilities of the robot [34]. Additionally, either intracorporeal (stapled or hand-sewn) or extracorporeal anasto­moses can be constructed due to the relative ease of robotic suturing. The specimen is typically extracted from the stapler port after it is extended in size.
Sigmoid Colectomy
https://t.me/med1917
335
10 Postoperative Care
Patients are admitted to the hospital postoperatively and transported to a recovery area immediately after the procedure. The Foley catheter can either be removed after the operation concludes or remain in place based on surgeon preference, intra­operative ndings, and clinical status. Antibiotics are generally not indicated post­operatively and should be discontinued within 24h of the operation. Postoperative goals of the ERAS protocols aim for adequate pain control, prevention of nausea and vomiting, and facilitation of early nutrition and mobilization. Judicious uid administration continues in the postoperative period. IV uids should be stopped as soon as the patient can tolerate oral liquids. Crystalloids are run at 1mL/kg/h post­operatively and discontinued after 6h or after 300 mL of oral intake, whichever occurs rst. Patients can be treated with a nite number of small uid boluses if necessary to treat hemodynamic instability or inadequate urine output. A clear liq­uid diet can be started within a few hours of the conclusion of the procedure and supplemented with high-calorie beverages. If post-operative nausea/vomiting (PONV) develops, diet advancement is delayed until symptoms have resolved. Early diet advancement has been shown to result in earlier return of bowel function and shorter length of stay without increased rates of nasogastric tube reinsertion or anastomotic complications [35]. Pain continues to be managed with a multimodal approach using medications from multiple different non-opioid classes including acetaminophen, NSAIDS, muscle relaxers, and gabapentinoids. Opioid medications can be supplemented as needed for pain control. Early mobilization (on postopera­tive day 0) is essential to prevent postoperative pneumonia and thromboembolic events [36, 37]. C-Reactive Protein (CRP) levels have been shown to be early pre­dictors of postoperative complications. Post-operative day 3 CRP >150 mg/L or persistent elevation of CRP should increase suspicion of an infectious complication. CRP levels below threshold are highly predictive of an uncomplicated recovery and are commonly used in ERAS protocols to guide discharge [38, 39]. It is common for patients to experience loose stools and increased frequency of bowel movements, which often resolves within 4–6months after surgery. If alvimopan is given preop­eratively, it is continued in the postoperative period until the patient’s bowel func­tion returns. Return of bowel function does not necessarily correspond with PO tolerance and is therefore no longer required before hospital discharge [40]. Discharge often depends on varying criteria related to oral food intake, ambulatory status, and bowel function. There is a movement towards same day discharge for some, highly selected patients [41]. Patients are instructed to avoid heavy lifting for 4–6weeks to minimize risk for incisional hernia formation. Subcutaneous heparin injections may be prescribed on discharge. Clinical practice guidelines recommend a total of 10–14days of low-molecular-weight heparin after operations for benign colorectal pathology and 28days total in patients with inammatory bowel disease or malignant colorectal pathology [42].
336
https://t.me/med1917
M. Unuvar and R. L. Hoffman
11 Complications
Possible complications after sigmoid colectomy include surgical site infection, intra-abdominal abscess, bleeding, anastomotic leak or stenosis, enteric stula, dehiscence or hernia, peroneal nerve injury, urinary tract infection, urinary reten­tion, and sexual dysfunction (erectile dysfunction, retrograde ejaculation), injury to nearby structures (intestines, bladder, ureter), and postoperative bowel obstruction or ileus, among others. As with most major surgeries, patients are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism as well as cardiac and pul­monary complications in the postoperative period [43].
References
1. Pritts TA, Nussbaum MS, Flesch LV, Fegelman EJ, Parikh AA, Fischer JE.Implementation of a clinical pathway decreases length of stay and cost for bowel resection. Ann Surg. 1999;230(5):728–33.
2. Basse L, Jakobsen DH, Billesbølle P, Werner M, Kehlet H.A clinical pathway to accelerate recovery after colonic resection. Ann Surg. 2000;232(1):51–7.
3. Basse L, Thorbøl JE, Løssl K, Kehlet H.Colonic surgery with accelerated rehabilitation or conventional care. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(3):271–7.
4. Kariv Y, Delaney CP, Senagore AJ, Manilich EA, Hammel JP, Church JM, Ravas J, Fazio VW.Clinical outcomes and cost analysis of a “fast track” postoperative care pathway for ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a case control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(2):137–46.
5. Muller S, Zalunardo MP, Hubner M, Clavien PA, Demartines N. A fast-track program reduces complications and length of hospital stay after colonic surgery. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(3):842–7.
6. Thiele RH, Rea KM, Turrentine FE, Friel CM, Hassinger TE, McMurry TL, Goudreau BJ, Umapathi BA, Kron IL, Sawyer RG, Hedrick TL. Standardization of care: impact of an enhanced recovery protocol on length of stay, complications, and direct costs after colorectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(4):430–43.
7. Gillis C, Carli F. Promoting perioperative metabolic and nutritional care. Anesthesiology. 2015;123(6):1455–72.
8. Smith MD, McCall J, Plank L, Herbison GP, Soop M, Nygren J. Preoperative carbohy­drate treatment for enhancing recovery after elective surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;8:CD009161.
9. Scarborough JE, Mantyh CR, Sun Z, Migaly J.Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces incisional surgical site infection and anastomotic leak rates after elective colorectal resection: an analysis of colectomy-targeted ACS NSQIP. Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):331–7.
10. Adam MA, Le LM, Kim J, Shenoi M, Mallipeddi M, Aziz H, Stinnett S, Sun Z, Mantyh CR, Thacker JKM.Alvimopan provides additional improvement in outcomes and cost savings in enhanced recovery colorectal surgery. Ann Surg. 2016;264(1):141–6.
11. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2013;70:195–283.
12. Silva GD, Boutros M, Wexner SD.Role of prophylactic ureteric stents in colorectal surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2012;5(3):105–10.
Sigmoid Colectomy
https://t.me/med1917
13. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ, Itani KMF, Otterson MF, Webb AL, Carrick MM, Miller HJ, Awad SS, Crosby CT, Mosier MC, Alsharif A, Berger DH.Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone­iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18–26.
14. Kurz A, Sessler DI, Lenhardt R. Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical- wound infection and shorten hospitalization. Study of Wound Infection and Temperature Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(19):1209–15.
15. Hübner M, Blanc C, Roulin D, Winiker M, Gander S, Demartines N.Randomized clinical trial on epidural versus patient-controlled analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery pathway. Ann Surg. 2015;261(4):648–53.
16. Keller DS, Ermlich BO, Delaney CP. Demonstrating the benets of transversus abdominis plane blocks on patient outcomes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: review of 200 consecu­tive cases. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(6):1143–8.
17. Lobo DN, Bostock KA, Neal KR, Perkins AC, Rowlands BJ, Allison SP.Effect of salt and water balance on recovery of gastrointestinal function after elective colonic resection: a ran­domized controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9320):1812–8.
18. Brandstrup B, Tønnesen H, Beier-Holgersen R, Hjortsø E, Ørding H, Lindorff-Larsen K, Rasmussen MS, Lanng C, Wallin L, Iversen LH, Gramkow CS, Okholm M, Blemmer T, Svendsen PE, Rottensten HH, Thage B, Riis J, Jeppesen IS, Teilum D, Christensen AM, Graungaard B, Pott F.Effects of intravenous uid restriction on postoperative complications: comparison of two perioperative uid regimens: a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 2003;238(5):641–8.
19. Luo Y, Qiu YE, Mu YF, Qin SL, Qi Y, Zhong M, Yu MH, Ma LY.Plastic wound protectors decreased surgical site infections following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for colorectal cancer. Medicine. 2017;96(37):e7752.
20. Lei WZ, Zhao GP, Cheng Z, Li K, Zhou ZG.Gastrointestinal decompression after excision and anastomosis of lower digestive tract. World J Gastroenterol. 2004;10(13):1998–2001.
21. Feo CV, Romanini B, Sortini D, Ragazzi R, Zamboni P, Pansini GC, Liboni A.Early oral feed­ing after colorectal resection: a randomized control study. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74(5):298–301.
22. Petrelli NJ, Stulc JP, Rodriguez-Bigas M, Blumenson L.Nasogastric decompression following elective colorectal surgery: a prospective randomized study. Am Surg. 1993;59(10):632–5.
23. Merad F, Yahchouchi E, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Laborde Y, Langlois-Zantain O.Prophylactic abdominal drainage after elective colonic resection and suprapromontory anastomosis: a mul­ticenter study controlled by randomization. Arch Surg. 1998;133(3):309–14.
24. Merad F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Yahchouchi E, Laborde Y, Pélisser E, Msika S, Flamant Y.Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. Surgery. 1999;125(5):529–35.
25. Poon JTC, Law WL, Fan JKM, Lo OSH.Impact of the standardized medial-to-lateral approach on outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection. World J Surg. 2009;33(10):2177–82.
26. Rotholtz NA, Bun ME, Tessio M, Lencinas SM, Laporte M, Aued ML, Peczan CE, Mezzadri NA.Laparoscopic colectomy: medial versus lateral approach. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009;19(1):43–7.
27. Docherty JG, McGregor JR, Akyol AM, Murray GD, Galloway DJ.Comparison of manually constructed and stapled anastomoses in colorectal surgery. West of Scotland and Highland Anastomosis Study Group. Ann Surg. 1995;221:176–84.
28. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2050–9.
29. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, etal. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic- assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718–26.
30. Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Borwn JM, Guillou PJ.Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1638–45.
337
338
https://t.me/med1917
31. Marcello PW, Fleshman JW, Milsom JW, Read TE, Arnell TD, Birnbaum EH, Feingold DF, Lee SW, Mutch MG, Sonoda T, Yan Y, Whelan RL.Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs. laparo­scopic colorectal surgery: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(6):818–26.
32. Chaudhry H, Pigazzi A.Site of extraction for laparoscopic colectomy: review and technique. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg. 2019;4:87.
33. Kavalukas SL, Ghuman A, Sharp SP, Wexner SD.Robotic or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer- which is the best answer? a comprehensive review of non-oncological outcomes and learning curve. J Minim Invasive Surg. 2020;4:61.
34. Grosek J, Tomažič A.Key applications for indocyanine green uorescence imaging in mini­mally invasive colorectal surgery. J Minim Access Surg. 2020;16(4):308–14.
35. Dag A, Colak T, Turkmenoglu O, Gundogdu R, Aydin S. A randomized controlled trial evaluating early versus traditional oral feeding after colorectal surgery. Clinics (San Paolo). 2011;66(12):2001–5.
36. Cassidy MR, Rosenkranz P, McAneny D.Reducing postoperative venous thromboembolism complications with a standardized risk-stratied prophylaxis protocol and mobilization pro­gram. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:1095–104.
37. Svensson-Raskh A, etal. Mobilization started within 2 hours after abdominal surgery improves peripheral and arterial oxygenation: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2021;101(5):pzab094.
38. MacKay GJ, etal. C-reactive protein as a predictor of postoperative infective complications following elective colorectal resection. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(5):583–7.
39. Lane JC, etal. Early prediction of adverse events in enhanced recovery based upon the host systemic inammatory response. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(2):224–30.
40. EuroSurg Collaborative. Safety of hospital discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2020;107(5):552–9.
41. Zheng V, et al. Same-day discharge (SDD) vs standard enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for major colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2023;38(10):110.
42. Fleming F, Gaertner W, Ternent C, etal. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons clinical practice guideline for the prevention of venous thromboembolic disease in colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61:14–20.
43. Kirchhoff P, Clavien PA, Hahnloser D.Complications in colorectal surgery: risk factors and preventative strategies. Patient Saf Surg. 2010;4(5):5.
M. Unuvar and R. L. Hoffman
Low Anterior Resection
https://t.me/med1917
andAbdominoperineal Resection
S.ThomasKang andDrewGunnells
1 Background
Rectal cancer historically carried with it unacceptably high mortality due to local recurrence. Part of the reason was due to our incomplete grasp of embryological planes, lymphatic drainage, and operative technique [1, 2].
Common presenting symptoms of rectal cancer are bleeding per rectum, change in bowel habits, tenesmus, and weight loss. In extensive local invasion, large bowel obstruction can occur.
The initial workup starts with thorough history including family history, physical exam with digital rectal exam, and—if feasible—a complete colonoscopy, noting the distance of the tumor from the anal verge [3]. A helpful endoscopic landmark is the second rectal valve of Houston, which roughly correlates to the anterior perito­neal reection [4].
Tissue sample should be tested for microsatellite instability (MSI), which can have a bearing on the treatment algorithm.
Once diagnosed with rectal cancer, both local and global staging are of para­mount importance. These include endorectal ultrasound, pelvic MRI, and CT of chest, abdomen, and pelvis.
Endorectal ultrasound has more utility in differentiating lower T-stage tumors such as T1 versus T2. Pelvic MRI has a broader scope in terms of assessing pelvic nodal disease. CT’s utility is in evaluating distant metastases [5].
In terms of laboratory workup, carcinoembryonic antigen, complete blood count (CBC), basic metabolic panel. Nutrition panel including pre-albumin and albumin
S. T. Kang (*) · D. Gunnells Department of Surgery, Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Alabama– Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA e-mail: dgunnells@uabmc.edu
Switzerland AG 2024 H. Chen, B. Lindeman (eds.), Illustrative Handbook of General Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63878-7_27
339© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
340
https://t.me/med1917
could be of utility especially in patients who reports weight loss and/or obstructive symptoms [5].
Until early twentieth century, perineal proctectomy was the standard of care, which was fraught with suboptimal oncologic outcomes and high morbidity. Dr. Ernest Miles of England in the early 1900s rst described abdominoperineal resec­tion. From the 1950s to the 1970s, the concept of intramural spread of adenocarci­noma as well as Dr. Heald’s “holy plane” came into vogue and revolutionized the surgical treatment of rectal cancer [6].
S. T. Kang and D. Gunnells
2 Indications
Various indications exist for both LAR and APR, though often they are used in the context of rectal adenocarcinoma. Other indications include gastrointestinal stromal tumor, neuroendocrine tumor, lymphoma, recurrent cancer after LAR, anal squa­mous cell cancer refractory to chemoradiation, ulcerative colitis (UC), and severe perianal Crohn’s [5].
In the setting of a malignancy, whether or not to offer a patient a sphincter pre­serving operation like LAR or APR with a permanent colostomy depends rst and foremost on tumor characteristics. They include factors such as initial clinical stag­ing, tumor location, and local involvement. For upper- or mid-rectal tumors for which a sufcient distal margin can be achieved, LAR with or without a temporary diverting loop ileostomy may be considered. However, for low tumors with involve­ment of the sphincters or for a low tumor in a patient with baseline fecal inconti­nence an APR is more appropriate. Whatever the approach, aiming for curative intent, therefore the optimal oncologic outcome is of paramount importance [5].
If a patient has severe perianal Crohn’s disease refractory to conservative man­agement with setons and medical therapy, this also would be an indication for APR with a permanent colostomy. Often times, plastic surgery can be involved for ap coverage of the perineal wound [5].
3 Perioperative Care
3.1 Preoperative Preparation
Patient should be optimized from medical comorbidity and nutrition standpoint. If the patient has had radiation and/or chemotherapy, an appropriate amount of time must be passed prior to the operation [7].
Any relevant imaging and labs such as pelvic MRI, CT scans, nutrition labs, and hemoglobin level must be accounted for. Bowel preparation must be done, prefera­bly using both mechanical (i.e. GoLytely) and oral antibiotics [8, 9].
Low Anterior Resection andAbdominoperineal Resection
https://t.me/med1917
If the patient is on an anticoagulation, the medication should be stopped. Surgical platform must be decided. For example, in cases where the abdominal surgical his­tory is extensive, an open approach may be more appropriate than minimally invasive.
341
3.2 Positioning andAnesthesia
The patient should be placed in lithotomy with stirrups and preferably with both arms tucked. Given the need for steep Trendelenburg position during the operation, the patient should be secured to the bed. All pressure points must be well-padded and surgical area clipped of hair. For a major abdominal case such as this, general anesthesia is required [5].
3.3 Description oftheProcedure
Regardless of minimally invasive or open approach, the general principles of both LAR and APR remain similar. For the purposes of this chapter, the medial-to-lateral dissection will be described.
After entering the abdomen and surveilling for any unexpected abnormalities, the patient should be placed in steep Trendelenburg position, causing all bowel to empty out of the pelvis.
Lifting of the rectosigmoid junction should reveal the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) pedicle. After identifying the right ureter and iliac vessels, the peritoneum at the mesenteric and retroperitoneal junction should be incised. The correct plane should reveal itself, which is made more obvious when minimally invasive owing to the pneumodissection. While keeping the superior rectal artery (SRA) up and dis­secting the hypogastric nerve down, the mesorectal plane is entered. Caution must be practiced to identify the left ureter and gonadal vessels at this time.
The SRA can be followed proximally, identifying the takeoff of the left colic artery and the IMA.High ligation of the IMA can be performed at this time, taking care to protect the left ureter and the hypogastric plexus. Proximally, this plane can be carried up to the splenic exure, freeing up the left colon mesentery from the retroperitoneum.
The extent of distal dissection in LAR depends on the level of resection needed to obtain an adequate distal margin. For APR, the distal dissection is carried all the way down to the pelvic oor.
In LAR, tension-free anastomosis with good blood supply is crucial. In order to obtain extra length, additional maneuvers can be performed such as complete mobi­lization of the splenic exure, mobilization of the distal colon to the level of the middle colic artery, and high ligation of the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV). When
342
https://t.me/med1917
S. T. Kang and D. Gunnells
dividing the mesentery of the colon, attention should be paid to preserve the mar­ginal artery.
During LAR, the anastomosis is made usually in an end-to-end fashion using a circular stapler after which a leak test is performed. Fecal diversion is usually achieved via a diverting loop ileostomy in the right abdomen.
No anastomosis is made during an APR; as such, extensive mobilization of the colon is usually not required as long as the colostomy can be fashioned without undue tension. An omental ap or a rectus muscle ap can be placed in the pelvis and perineum closed in multiple layers. A permanent colostomy is fashioned usu­ally in the left abdomen [2].
3.4 Special Considerations
3.4.1 Difcult Medial-to-Lateral Dissection
If the plane is challenging to delineate during a medial-to-lateral dissection, the surgeon may employ other approaches like lateral-to-medial and/or infra-IMV.
In the setting of rectal adenocarcinoma, a research by Dr. Habr-Gama of Brazil in 2004 demonstrated complete clinical response of the tumor in about 25% of patients. Since then, other institutions have started utilizing the “watch and wait” protocol in highly selected patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemoradia­tion and have had complete clinical response [10, 11].
Intersphincteric dissection is a technique that is used in patients who have rectal adenocarcinoma with internal anal sphincter involvement who elect for coloanal anastomosis or in patients with benign disease who do not require extralevator abdominoperinal excision (ELAPE) in order to keep the perineal wound small [2].
References
1. Knol J, Keller DS.Total mesorectal excision technique—past, present, and future. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2020;33:134–43.
2. Yuji T, Kusunoki M.Changes in surgical therapies for rectal cancer over 100 years: a review. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2020;4:331–42.
3. Ryan DP, et al. editors. Overview of the management of rectal adenocarcinoma.
https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview- of- the- management- of- rectal­adenocarcinoma?search=rectal%20cancer&source=search_result&selectedTitle=4~150&usa ge_type=default&display_rank=4#H1698198150. Accessed May 2023.
4. Salerno G, Sinnatamby C, etal. Dening the rectum: surgically, radiologically and anatomi­cally. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8(Suppl 3):5–9.
5. Steele SR, etal., editors. The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery. 4th ed. Cham: Springer; 2022.
6. Cancer stat facts: colorectal cancer. 2020. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2023.
Low Anterior Resection andAbdominoperineal Resection
https://t.me/med1917
7. Francois Y, Nemoz CJ, Baulieux J, etal. Inuence of the interval between preoperative radia­tion therapy and surgery on downstaging and on the rate of sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: the Lyon R90-01 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(8):2396.
8. Nichols RL, Condon RE, Gorbach SL, etal. Efcacy of preoperative antimicrobial preparation of the bowel. Ann Surg. 1972;176(2):227–32.
9. Scarborough JE, Mantyh CR, Sun Z, etal. Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces incisional surgical site infection and anastomotic leak rates after elec­tive colorectal resection: an analysis of colectomy-targeted ACS NSQIP. Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):331–7.
10. Habr-Gama A, Perez RO, etal. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for stage 0 distal rec­tal cancer following chemoradiation therapy. Ann Surg. 2004;240(4):711–8.
11. Roeder F, Meldolesi E, etal. Recent advances in (chemo-)radiation therapy for rectal cancer: a comprehensive review. Radiat Oncol. 2020;15:262.
343