Добавил:
Sekretar
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
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 insufate 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 benet of assessing perfusion of a new anastomosis in real time using indocyanine green (ICG) which is injected intravenously
and paired with the uorescence imaging (“Firey”) 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 24h 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 1mL/kg/h postoperatively and discontinued after 6h 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 4–6months 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
4–6weeks to minimize risk for incisional hernia formation. Subcutaneous heparin
injections may be prescribed on discharge. Clinical practice guidelines recommend
a total of 10–14days of low-molecular-weight heparin after operations for benign
colorectal pathology and 28days total in patients with inammatory 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 benets 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, etal. 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-stratied prophylaxis protocol and mobilization program. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:1095–104.
37. Svensson-Raskh A, etal. 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, etal. C-reactive protein as a predictor of postoperative infective complications
following elective colorectal resection. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(5):583–7.
39. Lane JC, etal. Early prediction of adverse events in enhanced recovery based upon the host
systemic inammatory 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, etal. 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
andAbdominoperineal Resection
S.ThomasKang andDrewGunnells
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 reection [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 sufcient 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 andAbdominoperineal 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 andAnesthesia
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 oftheProcedure
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 Difcult 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, etal. Dening the rectum: surgically, radiologically and anatomically. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8(Suppl 3):5–9.
5. Steele SR, etal., 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 andAbdominoperineal Resection
https://t.me/med1917
7. Francois Y, Nemoz CJ, Baulieux J, etal. Inuence 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, etal. Efcacy of preoperative antimicrobial preparation
of the bowel. Ann Surg. 1972;176(2):227–32.
9. Scarborough JE, Mantyh CR, Sun Z, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. Recent advances in (chemo-)radiation therapy for rectal cancer:
a comprehensive review. Radiat Oncol. 2020;15:262.
343
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
