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_869_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
xxiv
LuisGustavoCapochinRomagnolo, MD IRCAD Latin America, Barretos,
Brazil
Department of Surgery, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil
Marcos Gómez Ruiz, MD, PhD, FEBS, Coloproctology Hospital
Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, IDIVAL, Servicio de Cirugía General y
Aparato Digestivo, Unidad de Cirugía Colorrectal, Santander, Spain
EricRullier, MD Department of Colorectal Surgery, Haut-Levèque, Pessac,
France
Muhammad Shaque Sajid, MBBS, MSc, MBA, FCPS, FRCS
(GEN) Department of Digestive Disease, The Royal Sussex County Hospital,
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK
Yoshiharu Sakai, MD, PhD, FACS Department of Surgery, Graduate
School of Medicine, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
Ryohei Sakamoto, MD Department of Gastroenterological Surgery,
Fukuoka University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan
JeanSalem, MD Lankenau Medical Center, Division of Colorectal Surgery,
Wynnewood, PA, USA
Dana Sands, MD, FACS, FASCRS Department of Colorectal Surgery,
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA
Contributors
GuilhermePaginSãoJulião, MD Angelita & Joaquim Gama Institute, Sao
Paulo, Brazil
Rishabh Sehgal, MB, MD University Hospital Limerick, Department of
Surgery, Limerick, Ireland
C.Sietses, MD, PhD Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Department of Surgery, Ede,
Gelderland, The Netherlands
ThushySiva, MBBS Easton Hospital, Department of Surgery, Easton, PA,
USA
António S. Soares Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences,
University College London Hospitals, NHS Trusts, GENIE Centre, University
College London, London, UK
Antonino Spinelli, MD, PhD, FASCRS Division of Colon and Rectal
Surgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
ScottR.Steele, MD Department of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease
and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA
Andrew R. L. Stevenson, MBBS, FRACS, FASCRS University of
Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Colorectal Surgery, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia
Contributors
xxv
PatriciaSylla, MD, FACS, FASCRS Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery,
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
Jean-SébastienTrépanier, MD Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, General
Surgery Department, Montréal, Québec, Canada
TrucVuTrung, MD Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam
St Paul Hospital, Digestive Colorectal Department of Minimally Invasive
Surgery, Hanoi, Vietnam
Jurriaan Benjamin Tuynman, MD, PhD Department of Surgery,
Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VUmc, Cancer Center
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
BrunaBorbaVailati, MD Angelita & Joaquim Gama Institute, Sao Paulo,
Brazil
Stefan Erik Van Oostendorp, MD Department of Surgery, Amsterdam
University Medical Center, location VUmc, Cancer Center Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
ItzelVela, MD Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico City, Mexico
ElenaA.T.Vikis, MD, Med, FRCSC Royal Columbian and Eagle Ridge
Hospitals, Department of Surgery, New Westminster, BC, Canada
StevenD.Wexner, MD, PhD(Hon) Digestive Disease Center, Weston, FL,
USA
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL,
USA
Arthur Randolph Wijsmuller, MD, PhD Department of Surgery,
University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
AlbertM.Wolthuis, MD University Hospitals, Abdominal Surgery, Leuven,
Belgium
Nathalie Wong-Chong, MD Department of Surgery, McGill University
Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
RaymondYap, MBBS, BMedSCi, MSurgEd Florida Hospital, Center for
Colon and Rectal Surgery, Orlando, FL, USA
ShlomoYellinek, MD Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic
Florida, Weston, FL, USA
Yoichiro Yoshida, MD, PhD Department of Gastroenterological Surgery,
Fukuoka University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan
KarenN.Zaghiyan, MD, FACS, FASCRS Cedars-Sinai Medical Center,
Division of Colon & Rectal Surgery, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Part I
Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery
(TAMIS)
Historical Perspectives and Rationale for Development
Sergio W. Larach and Beatriz Martín-Pérez
1
Introduction
Rectal lesions, whether of benign or malignant
histology, present a special challenge for surgeons
because of the difculty of access and exposureto
the rectal lumen. Traditional transanal methods,
such as Parks transanal excision (TAE), have been
associated with a high incidence of local recurrence,thus unleashing the development of newer
approaches. Heralding the era of the expansion of
endoscopic surgery, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) represented a milestone in the
approach to rectal lesionexcision, as it achieved
minimally invasive access to the upper rectum, a
better quality of excision with improved likelihood of achieving negative resection margins. As
a result, decreased recurrence rates and improved
disease- free survival were observed, all due to
improved access and the concomitant improvement of visual eld and dissection quality. Despite
these advantages, TEM use was limited,
mainlydue to a steep learning curve, complex surgical setup, and cost of instrumentation. It was
with this pretext that transanal minimally invasive
surgery (TAMIS) was born, combining TEM
S. W. Larach (*)
Endosurgical Center of Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
B. Martín-Pérez
Hospital Clinic, Barcelona (Spain), Gastrointestinal
Surgery, Barcelona, Spain
principles with conventional laparoscopic instrumentation, creating an important new option for
appropriately trained minimally invasive colorectal surgeons.
From Miles Resection to Parks Excision
Surgical management of rectal lesions represents a
challenge for the colorectal surgeon. Through the
twentieth century, the approach to rectal cancer has
largely evolved from invasive radical resections to
organ-sparing techniques. Jacques Lisfranc de St.
Martin (1790–1847) pioneered transanal rectal
cancer excision, when in 1826 he described the
removal of the anus and rectum through the
perineum, resulting on a perineal colostomy [1]. In
1875, Kocher and Verneuil tried to improved rectal
access and described the posterior approach including coccygectomy; this was subsequently rened
by Paul Kraske (1851–1930) [2]. Abdominoperineal
resection (APR) for rectal cancer was later
described in 1908 by Dr. Ernest Miles, reducing
local recurrence rates from 100% to 30% [3].
However, the morbidity associated with APR was
high, ranging from 15% to 61% [4–7].
Surgeons continued to search for less-invasive
options to manage rectal cancer, particularly within the distal one-third of the rectum.
The objective would be to develop sphincterpreservation techniques that could spare patients
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
S. Atallah (ed.), Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) and Transanal Total Mesorectal
Excision (taTME), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11572-2_1
3
4
fromthe high morbidity of APR while maintaining acceptable oncologic outcomes. In the case of
premalignant lesions including carcinoma in situ,
the benets of local operations for tumor removal
present a signicant advantage, as such lessinvasive surgery by this modality avoids the morbidity of radical surgery with virtually no
oncologic compromise.
In the early twentieth century, screening and
endoscopic techniques were less developed than
at present, for which these group of patients with
benignneoplasia or T1 cancers were subjected to
a radical surgery, permanent colostomy, and a
high rate of morbidity. Despite radical surgery,
patients had a high rate of local recurrence even
for early-stage rectal cancer [4, 6]. In this quest
for better approaches, local excision for rectal
lesions was born as an organ preservation surgery
for suitable lesions.
The pathway for management of early-stage
rectal cancer followed the treatment model of
early-stage breast cancer – which was treated
with either (a) breast-conservation surgery and
radiotherapy or (b)radical mastectomy alone [8].
Local excision for premalignant and early-stage
rectal cancer (predominately via Parkstransanal
excision, TAE) aimed to offer patient an improved
quality of life, through stoma-free surgery and
maintenance of normal bowel and urogenital
function, while obtaining similar disease-free
survival and cure rates to those observed with
radical resection. This technique was performed
with transanal retractors, which provide suboptimal exposure of the rectal lumen (Fig. 1.1).
Electrocautery and conventional surgical instruments were used for the local excision ofrectal
neoplasms, and the full-thickness defects were
closed with suture. Illumination of the rectal
lumen and overalloperative eldexposure was
limited by external eld lights (headlights
onlymodestly improve visualization, and are difcult to direct and maintain onto targets). Due to
these constraints, only low-lying rectal lesions
(i.e., palpable lesions, whose upper edge does not
extend beyond <7cm from the verge) were accessible by this approach, and complete, marginnegative excision of specimens could be quite
challenging due to this limited exposure.
S. W. Larach and B. Martín-Pérez
Fig. 1.1 Parks anal retractor
Despite these limitations, early series from
the 1970s were able to demonstrate that local
excision for early-stage rectal cancer with favorable histopathological features had equivalent
oncologic outcomes when compared with radical resection. In a landmark study by Morson
etal., the data for local excision revealeda failure rate (as dened by locoregional recurrence)
that measured 8.4%, which was felt to be quite
acceptable [9].
In the 1990s, the results of a prospective,
multi-institutional study from the Cancer and
Leukemia Group B (CalGB) reinforced the idea
of local excision and organ preservation for
select, early-stage rectal cancer [10]. Fifty-nine
cases of T1 were treated with local excision alone
and 51 cases of T2 undergoing adjuvant external
beam radiotherapy after local excision (local
excision was performed utilizing the conventional Parks TAE technique). The 6-year overallsurvival of 85% and disease-freesurvival rates
of 78% for this treatment seemed promising, particularly when compared to the 20–30% failure
rates after standard oncologic resection prior to
the era of TME surgery [5, 6]. These encouraging
early results were very well received by the surgical community, which resulted in an overall
increased rate of local excision as a modality of
treatment [11]. Unfortunately, subsequent series
published inferior results even in the same selection of T1 patients, whereby the observed local
recurrencerate increased from 8% to 18% for T1
1 Historical Perspectives and Rationale for Development
lesions and, even a more alarmingly, from 18% to
37% for the T2 cancers treated in this fashion
[12–14]. Parallel to these results, the technique
for radical surgery was evolving. Lead by RJ
Heald, total mesorectal excision (TME) was
being implemented around the globe. It was
learnt that through proper sharp dissection along
the embryonic plane of the TME envelope, local
recurrence for stage I rectal cancer could be
reduced to 7.1% [15]. Parks TAE had inferior
oncologic results compared to new-era TME surgery [12, 16]. The awareness that the improvement on patient’s quality of life with local
excision and organ-sparing surgery was at the
expense of worse oncologic outcomes resulted in
an overall decrease on the use of local excision
for invasive lesions [17].
Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM)
5
Surgical evolution has been largely inuenced by
instrumentation development, and the advances
in the technique of local excision would undoubtedly come from creative applications of these
advancements. The discovery of the rst rigid
endoscopes presented by Desormeaux in 1865
later would evolve into the rst beroptic endoscopic procedure in 1957 [18], heralding the new
era of laparoscopy and minimally invasive surgery, which would nd tting applications in the
late 1980s toward a multitude of common abdominal operations [18–20].
In such a way, the design of an advanced
endoscopic transanal platform with an endoscopic camera and laparoscopic-style surgical
instruments would yield access to the rectal cavity with superior visibility when compared to the
traditional Parks approach and even provided
access to more proximal lesions that were not
accessible before with conventional techniques
for local excision.
In 1983, predating the rst laparoscopic cholecystectomy by a few years, Dr. Gerhard Buess
designed transanal endoscopic microsurgery
(TEM) (Fig. 1.2). It was a platform that, for the
rst time, allowed for excision of benign neoplasia
Fig. 1.2 Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM)
equipment. Developed in 1983 by Gerhard Buess, It
allowed for high denition access to the rectal vault for
the purpose of performing local excision
of the mid and upper rectum [21]. TEM consists of
a rigid transanal platform, which allows insufating of the rectal cavity, creating a pneumorectum.
TEM has three working channels, one for a xed
camera and other two for working instruments
(cautery, suction, suture, etc.). The improved visualization from a stereoscopic magnied view in
the pneumatically distended rectum allows for
precise excision in an operative space that would
be otherwise difcult to reach. Initially, Buess
designed TEM for local excision of nonmalignant
lesions not within reach of conventional transanal
methods, addressing the limitations of the Parks
excision. It was not designed with the purpose of
performing higher-quality excision. However, the
platform was soon utilized also for resection at any
level of the rectum and for early malignant lesions,
since TEM became increasingly recognized as the
better platform for this [22].
6
Since its rst description, the use of TEM has
proven to result in high-quality excisions with
outcomes that were more favorable than standard
transanal techniques for local excision, with a low
recurrence rate [23–29]. Winde et al. [22]
described no difference in disease-free and overall survival for patients with T1 rectal cancer
operated with local excision viaTEM versus radicalresection. A 10-year single center experience
demonstrated that for 70 patients who underwent
TEM for T1 rectal cancer, a local recurrence rate
of 8.5% was observed [30]. Furthermore, data
surmised from other studies, indicated that local
excision via the traditional (Parks) approach has
inferior 5-year survival rates compared to anterior
resection for patients with T1N0M0 disease;
while, when local excision of T1 lesions was performed with TEM, the oncologic results were
comparable to those achieved with radical surgery
for early rectal cancer [16, 31, 32].
For 25 years, TEM was the only available
advanced transanal platform. However, this
advanced transanal platform required specic
instrumentation (with associated higher cost),
posed ergonomic difculties, and resulted in a
steep learning curvefor even experienced trainees [33, 34]. The economic pressure for cost containment in the healthcare system limited the
investment in TEM, and few institutions could
afford the TEM apparatus, as a high volume of
cases was necessary to amortize the price of the
platform [20]. For these reasons, widespread
adoption was limited, and TEM for local excision
remains, to this day, an operative technique primarily performed by a small number of highvolume specialists in referral centers [35, 36].
Over the decades, the system’s design has not
been signicantly modied, and it is essentially
unchanged since its development by G. Buess.
Transanal endoscopic operation (TEO) (Fig.1.3)
emerged as a similar platform to TEM, with analogous principles, indications, and results [37].
Together, TEO and TEM are considered advanced
transanal platforms capable of performing highquality excision of rectal neoplasia. They are
often referred to as “rigid platforms.” In general,
most experts believe the quality of excision
achievable with TEM and TEO is the same.
S. W. Larach and B. Martín-Pérez
Fig. 1.3 Transanal endoscopic operation (TEO) platform. (Reproduced with permission of Karl Storz SE &
Co.)
Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS)
The beginning of the twenty-rst century was
marked by further evolution in abdominal laparoscopy and abdominal access strategies.
Meanwhile, the concept of natural orice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) emerged in
2004. This led to the idea of consolidating laparoscopic trocars into a combined port that could be
delivered through the umbilicus (an embryonic
natural orice). Thus, the birth of the “single port”
was based on (a) decreased abdominal wall access
trauma and (b) the ability to provide a minimally
invasive route via an embryonic natural orice.
Although the concept of single-wound minimally
invasive access was reported by Pelosi et al. in
1992 as a transumbilical approach for appendectomy [38], it was not until the mid- 2000s, in the
wake of NOTES, that single ports were manufactured, and this approach was subsequently applied
to a broad range of abdominalprocedures including colonic resection [39, 40].
Although not intended by design to be used
for transanal access, the single port seemed ideal
for this purpose. In 2009, this was performed for
the rst time, giving birth to a new operation for
rectal surgery. The new approach would have a
profound effect on how colorectal surgeons
would operate within the rectum. The technique
was termed transanal minimally invasive surgery
(TAMIS) by its founders S. Atallah, M. Albert,
and SW.Larach [41].
1 Historical Perspectives and Rationale for Development
7
It is often said that necessity is the mother of
invention. TAMIS represented an alternate option
for advanced transanal access for surgeons and
hospital systems that did not have the highly specialized and costly TEM system. After all, TAMIS
was simple to set up, relied on conventional laparoscopic equipment, and was predicated on laparoscopic skills and familiar techniques.
Additionally, TAMIS did not appear to have a
long learning curve and did not require specialized training (as is the case with TEM) [41].
TAMIS provided the surgeon with improved visualization and reach. In short, it allowed colorectal
surgeons to translate their familiar laparoscopic
skill set to transanal surgery, which resulted in
rapid dissemination of the TAMIS technique [42].
The rst platform placed transanally and the
rst series reported on TAMIS utilized the SILS
Port (Covidien, Manseld, MA) (Fig.1.4). While
suitable for access, this and other single ports
were not designed for transanal access and
required modication. An important limit of the
SILS port was that it did not allow for access into
the lumen, without completely removing the
port; there were other limitations as well, including cannula diameter which was restricted to
5mm at the time.
With input from the surgeons who developed
TAMIS, dedicated platforms were designed specically for transanal access– the rst of which
remains the one most widely used today: Namely,
the GelPOINT path transanal access platform
(Applied Medical, Inc., Rancho Santa Margarita,
CA) (Fig.1.5). The GelPOINT Path, often simply
referred to as the “TAMIS Port”, is constructed
from single-use exible material composed of
two main parts, an access channel and a removable lid. Three 10mm cannulas are usually used,
one for the camera lens and two working ports,
through which standard laparoscopicinstruments
can be introduced. The TAMIS platform isquite
versatile and even allows for robotic access – a
technique termed robotic TAMIS or robotic transanal surgery (RTS) [43–45].
TAMIS utilization has rapidly spread worldwide because of its accessibility and the increasing number of training courses available for
surgeons. Its global adoption has been reected
by the increasing number of publications and
citations since 2009 [36, 42, 46–60].
Future of TAMIS
TAMIS was created to evolve, and not remain
static. The future will likely represent new avenues for TAMIS as surgeons explore new applications. To date, many applications beyond local
excision have been realized. Most notably, TAMIS
became the standard route of access for the
Fig. 1.4 Shown is a Single-Incision Laparoscopic (SILS)
Port.Although it was not intended to be used transanally, it
was used to develop the TAMIS technique.The SILSportwas
used for all cases published in the rst series on TAMIS and
predated the creation of TAMIS- specic ports
Fig. 1.5 Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS)
platform, or TAMIS Port.This devicewas developed specically for transanal access and was created and designed
with the aid of the surgeons who developed the technique
8
Radical Excision Local Excision
Evolution and Milestones in Rectal Surgery
S. W. Larach and B. Martín-Pérez
1820’s
Perineal
colostomy
Dr. Lisfranc (1)
Posterior access
Dr. Verneuil
Dr. Kraske (2)
Transanal excision
Dr. Parks (9)
1950’s
1908
Abdominoperineal
resection
Dr. Miles (3)
TEM
Transanal
Endoscopic
Microsurgery
Dr. Buess (23)
1983
1980’s
Total Mesorectal
Excision(TME)
Dr. Heald(16)
TEO
Transanal
Endoscopic
Operation
(25, 26)
1990’s
Laparoscopic
Colorectal surgery
Dr. Jacobs,
Dr. Larach,
Dr. Wexner,
Dr. Franklin &
Dr. Nelson (40–44)
Fig. 1.6 Evolution and milestones in rectal surgery
modern day transanal total mesorectal excision.
From a technical standpoint, further instrumentation and platform renementswill likely contribute to the advancement of TAMIS. Next- generation
exible robotic transanal systems are poised to be
part of the future evolution of TAMIS.
Figure 1.6 shows the evolution and milestones
in rectal surgery.
Conclusion
TAMIS arose serendipitously and represents an
amalgam of innovations in laparoscopy, singleport surgery, NOTES, and TEM. The impetus
behind its development was the need for improved
access to the rectal lumen, thereby providing a
practical and effective alternative to TEM.
References
1. Nathan BN. Excision of rectal cancer: the rst
reported case. Can J Surg. 1991;34(2):108.
2. Wilson SE, Gordon HE.Excision of rectal lesions by
the Kraske approach. Am J Surg. 1969;118(2):213–7.
3. Miles WE. A method of performing abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of
the terminal portion of the pelvic colon (1908). CA
Cancer J Clin. 1971;21(6):361–4.
Transanal minimally
Invasive Surgery
(TAMIS)
Dr. Larach, Dr. Atallah
& Dr. Albert (54)
2010
2000’s
Single Port Surgery
Dr. Pelosi,
Dr. Esposito &
Dr. Remzi (45–47)
NOTES
Dr. Rattner,
Dr. Lacy &
Dr. Zorron
(50–52)
RoboticTME
Dr. Pigazzi (53)
2009
Transanal
TME (TaTME)
Dr. Lacy, Dr. Sylla,
Dr. Whiteford
TAMIS-TME
Dr. Atallah
(51, 96–98)
2015
Image guided
Surgery for
taTME
Dr. Atallah
(102)
Robotic
TaTME
Dr. Atallah
(103)
Exenteration
TaTME
Dr. Uematsu
4. Rosen L, Veidenheimer MC, Coller JA, Corman
ML.Mortality, morbidity, and patterns of recurrence
after abdominoperineal resection for cancer of the
rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 1982;25(3):202–8.
5. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study G.Prolongation of the
disease-free interval in surgically treated rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(23):1465–72.
6. Luna-Perez P, Rodriguez-Ramirez S, Vega J, Sandoval
E, Labastida S. Morbidity and mortality following
abdominoperineal resection for low rectal adenocarcinoma. Rev Investig Clin. 2001;53(5):388–95.
7. Wang YW, Huang LY, Song CL, Zhuo CH, Shi DB,
Cai GX, et al. Laparoscopic vs open abdominoperineal resection in the multimodality management of low rectal cancers. World J Gastroenterol.
2015;21(35):10174–83.
8. Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Wolmark N,
Wickerham DL, Cronin WM.Reanalysis and results
after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical
trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy
with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast
cancer. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(22):1456–61.
9. Morson BC, Bussey HJ, Samoorian S.Policy of local
excision for early cancer of the colorectum. Gut.
1977;18(12):1045–50.
10. Steele GD Jr, Herndon JE, Bleday R, Russell A,
Benson A 3rd, Hussain M, et al. Sphincter-sparing
treatment for distal rectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg
Oncol. 1999;6(5):433–41.
11. You YN, Baxter NN, Stewart A, Nelson H. Is the
increasing rate of local excision for stage I rectal cancer in the United States justied?: a nationwide cohort
study from the National Cancer Database. Ann Surg.
2007;245(5):726–33.
12. Madbouly KM, Remzi FH, Erkek BA, Senagore AJ,
Baeslach CM, Khandwala F, et al. Recurrence after
1 Historical Perspectives and Rationale for Development
9
transanal excision of T1 rectal cancer: should we be
concerned? Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(4):711–9.
discussion 9-21.
13. Garcia-Aguilar J, Mellgren A, Sirivongs P, Buie D,
Madoff RD, Rothenberger DA.Local excision of rectal cancer without adjuvant therapy: a word of caution. Ann Surg. 2000;231(3):345–51.
14. Greenberg JA, Shibata D, Herndon JE 2nd, Steele GD
Jr, Mayer R, Bleday R.Local excision of distal rectal cancer: an update of cancer and leukemia group B
8984. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(8):1185–91. discussion 91-4.
15. McCall JL, Cox MR, Wattchow DA.Analysis of local
recurrence rates after surgery alone for rectal cancer.
Int J Color Dis. 1995;10(3):126–32.
16. Mellgren A, Sirivongs P, Rothenberger DA, Madoff
RD, Garcia-Aguilar J. Is local excision adequate
therapy for early rectal cancer? Dis Colon Rectum.
2000;43(8):1064–71. discussion 71-4.
17. Gillern SM, Mahmoud NN, Paulson EC. Local
excision for early stage rectal cancer in patients
over age 65 years: 2000-2009. Dis Colon Rectum.
2015;58(2):172–8.
18. Lau WY, Leow CK, Li AK. History of endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery. World J Surg.
1997;21(4):444–53.
19. Hatzinger M, Fesenko A, Sohn M.The rst human laparoscopy and NOTES operation: Dimitrij Oscarovic
Ott (1855-1929). Urol Int. 2014;92(4):387–91.
20. Rock JA, Warshaw JR.The history and future of operative laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170(1
Pt 1):7–11.
21. Buess G, Theiss R, Gunther M, Hutterer F, Pichlmaier
H.Transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Leber Magen
Darm. 1985;15(6):271–9.
22. Winde G, Nottberg H, Keller R, Schmid KW, Bunte
H. Surgical cure for early rectal carcinomas (T1).
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery vs. anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39(9):969–76.
23. de Graaf EJ, Burger JW, van Ijsseldijk AL, Tetteroo
GW, Dawson I, Hop WC. Transanal endoscopic
microsurgery is superior to transanal excision of rectal adenomas. Color Dis. 2011;13(7):762–7.
24. Middleton PF, Sutherland LM, Maddern GJ.Transanal
endoscopic microsurgery: a systematic review. Dis
Colon Rectum. 2005;48(2):270–84.
25. Buess GF, Misra MC, Bhattacharjee HK, Becerra
Garcia FC, Bansal VK, Bermudez JR. Single-port
surgery and NOTES: from transanal endoscopic
microsurgery and transvaginal laparoscopic cholecystectomy to transanal rectosigmoid resection. Surg
Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2011;21(3):e110–9.
26. Moore JS, Cataldo PA, Osler T, Hyman NH.Transanal
endoscopic microsurgery is more effective than traditional transanal excision for resection of rectal
masses. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(7):1026–30. discussion 30-1.
27. O’Neill CH, Platz J, Moore JS, Callas PW, Cataldo
PA. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early
rectal Cancer: a single-center experience. Dis Colon
Rectum. 2017;60(2):152–60.
28. Clancy C, Burke JP, Albert MR, O’Connell PR,
Winter DC.Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus standard transanal excision for the removal of rectal neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(2):254–61.
29. Suppiah A, Maslekar S, Alabi A, Hartley JE, Monson
JR.Transanal endoscopic microsurgery in early rectal
cancer: time for a trial? Color Dis. 2008;10(4):314–
27. discussion 27-9.
30. Jones HJS, Hompes R, Mortensen N, Cunningham
C. Modern management of T1 rectal cancer by
TEM:a ten-year single-centre experience. Color Dis.
2018;20:586.
31. Heintz A, Morschel M, Junginger T. Comparison of
results after transanal endoscopic microsurgery and
radical resection for T1 carcinoma of the rectum. Surg
Endosc. 1998;12(9):1145–8.
32. Kidane B, Chadi SA, Kanters S, Colquhoun PH, Ott
MC.Local resection compared with radical resection
in the treatment of T1N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon
Rectum. 2015;58(1):122–40.
33. Maya A, Vorenberg A, Oviedo M, da Silva G, Wexner
SD, Sands D. Learning curve for transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a single-center experience. Surg
Endosc. 2014;28(5):1407–12.
34. Koebrugge B, Bosscha K, Ernst MF. Transanal
endoscopic microsurgery for local excision of rectal lesions: is there a learning curve? Dig Surg.
2009;26(5):372–7.
35. Atallah S, Keller D.Why the conventional parks transanal excision for early stage rectal cancer should be
abandoned. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(12):1211–4.
36. Martin-Perez B, Andrade-Ribeiro GD, Hunter L,
Atallah S.A systematic review of transanal minimally
invasive surgery (TAMIS) from 2010 to 2013. Tech
Coloproctol. 2014;18(9):775–88.
37. Nieuwenhuis DH, Draaisma WA, Verberne GH, van
Overbeeke AJ, Consten EC. Transanal endoscopic
operation for rectal lesions using two-dimensional
visualization and standard endoscopic instruments:
a prospective cohort study and comparison with the
literature. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(1):80–6.
38. Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA 3rd. Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture (minilaparoscopy). J Reprod Med. 1992;37(7):588–94.
39. Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, Ragupathi M, Haas
EM. Single incision laparoscopic-assisted right
hemicolectomy: technique and application (with
video). Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech.
2010;20(5):e146–9.
40. Cianchi F, Staderini F, Badii B.Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer: state of art.
World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(20):6073–80.
41. Atallah S, Albert M, Larach S.Transanal minimally
invasive surgery: a giant leap forward. Surg Endosc.
2010;24(9):2200–5.
42. Atallah SB, Albert MR.Transanal minimally invasive
surgery (TAMIS) versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM): is one better than the other? Surg
Endosc. 2013;27(12):4750–1.