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_869_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
36 Мб
Скачать
28 Strategies for Ultralow-Lying Rectal Cancer
293
include the creation of advanced courses for those who already have clinical taTME experi­ence who wish to augment their skill set– with the objective of expanding fundamental knowl­edge to address ultralow-lying cancers. Specic training modules should focus on an understand­ing of the ultralow pelvic anatomy, particularly in males, and the ability to dene the prostatic anat­omy is paramount when performing ultralow taTME [39, 58, 80].
New protocols including the selective use of radiotherapy [81] which may include systemic chemotherapy as an alternative for (some) locally advanced tumors [82, 83] and total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) [8487] may improve oncologic clearance. Moreover, this may obviate the need for surgical resection altogether by achieving mural sterilization–which, at some expert cen­ters, is managed with watch and wait protocols and observation alone [8891].
As further experience and data are collected, understanding the oncologic outcomes for Type I, II, and III tumors with taTME (via the approaches described herein) should be carefully assessed. As a cautionary note, taTME does not result in a 100% rate of distal margin clearance. To date, in the largest single-center series on taTME (n=186) for mid and distal rectal cancer, the rate of distal margin positivity was 8.1% [92]. Given that this data is from the leading center of expertise on taTME, great care and careful under­standing of the technical steps are necessary. This underscores the importance of careful assessment and surgeon education as these new techniques, including taTME with ISR, become globally implemented.

References

1. Miles WE. A method of performing abdomino-
perineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon. Lancet. 1908;2:1812–3.
2. Schmitz RL, Nelson PA, Martin GB, Boghossian
HM.Synchronous (two-team) abdominoperineal resec­tion of the rectum. AMA Arch Surg. 1958;77(4):492–7.
3. Hochenegg J. Die sacrale Methode der Extirpation
von Mastdarmkrebsen nach Professor Kraske. Wien Klin Wschr. 1888;1:254.
4. Maunsell HW. A new method of excising the two upper portion of the rectum and the lower seg­ment of the sigmoid exure of the colon. Lancet. 1892;2:473–6.
5. Prete F, Prete FP.The pull-through: back to the future. G Chir. 2013;34(11–12):293–301.
6. Ravitch MM, Steichen FM. Technics of staple suturing in the gastrointestinal tract. Ann Surg. 1972;175:815–37.
7. Fain SN, Patin CS, Morgenstern L.Use of a mechani­cal suturing apparatus in low colorectal anastomosis. Arch Surg. 1975;110:1079–82.
8. Lirici MM, Hüscher CG.Techniques and technology evolution of rectal cancer surgery: a history of more than a hundred years. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2016;25(5):226–33. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13645706.2016.1198381. Epub 2016 Jul 14.
9. Parks AG, Nicholls R. Proctocolectomy with­out ileostomy for ulcerative colitis. Br Med J. 1978;2(6130):85–8.
10. Madden MV, Neale KF, Nicholls RJ, Landgrebe JC, Chapman PD, Bussey HJ, Thomson JP.Comparison of morbidity and function after colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis or restorative proctocolec­tomy for familial adenomatous polyposis. Br J Surg. 1991;78(7):789–92.
11. Nyam DC, Brillant PT, Dozois RR, Kelly KA, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG. Ileal pouch-anal canal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis: early and late results. Ann Surg. 1997;226(4):514.
12. Heald RJ, Ryall RD. Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet. 1986;1:1479–82.
13. Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Ryall RD, Sexton R, MacFarlane JK. Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978-1997. Arch Surg. 1998;133(08):894–9.
14. Marks G, Mohiuddin M, Masoni L, Montori A.High­dose preoperative radiation therapy as the key to extending sphincter-preservation surgery for can­cer of the distal rectum. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 1992;1(1):71–86.
15. Marks JH, Frenkel JL, D’Andrea AP, Greenleaf CE. Maximizing rectal cancer results: TEM and TATA techniques to expand sphincter preservation. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2011;20(3):501–20, viii–ix.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soc.2011.01.008.
16. Marks J, Mizrahi B, Dalane S, Nweze I, Marks G.Laparoscopic transanal abdominal transanal resec­tion with sphincter preservation for rectal cancer in the distal 3cm of the rectum after neoadjuvant ther­apy. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(11):2700–7.
17. Atallah S, Albert M, Larach S.Transanal minimally invasive surgery: a giant leap forward. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(9):2200–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-
010-0927-z. Epub 2010 Feb 21.
18. Sylla P, Rattner DW, Delgado S, Lacy AM. NOTES transanal rectal cancer resection using transanal endo­scopic microsurgery and laparoscopic assistance. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1205–10.
294
S. Atallah and E. Rullier
19. Atallah S, Albert M, DeBeche-Adams T, Nassif G, Polavarapu H, Larach S. Transanal mini­mally invasive surgery for total mesorectal exci­sion (TAMIS-TME): a stepwise description of the surgical technique with video demonstration. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17(3):321–5. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10151-012-0971-x. Epub 2013 Feb 2.
20. Atallah S. Transanal total mesorectal excision: full steam ahead. Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19(2):57–61.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1254-5. Epub
2015 Jan 6.
21. Rullier E. Transanal mesorectal excision: the new challenge in rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(7):621–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/
DCR.0000000000000395.
22. Atallah S.Transanal minimally invasive surgery for total mesorectal excision. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2014;23(1):10–6. https://doi.org/10.3109/13
645706.2013.833118. Epub 2013 Sep 1.
23. Heald RJ. A new solution to some old problems: transanal TME.Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17:257–8.
24. Schiessel R, Karner-Hanusch J, Herbst F, Teleky B, Wunderlich M.Intersphincteric resection for low rec­tal tumours. Br J Surg. 1994;81(09):1376–8.
25. Lavery IC, Lopez-Kostner F, Fazio VW, Fernandez­Martin M, Milsom JW, Church JM. Chances of cure are not compromised with sphincter-saving pro­cedures for cancer of the lower third of the rectum. Surgery. 1997;122(04):779–84, discussion 784–5.
26. Rullier E, Zerbib F, Laurent C, etal. Intersphincteric resection with excision of internal anal sphincter for conservative treatment of very low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42(09):1168–75; Tilney HS, Tekkis PP.Extending the horizons of restorative rectal surgery: intersphincteric resection for low rectal can­cer. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(1):3–15.
27. Saito N, Ono M, Sugito M, et al. Early results of intersphincteric resection for patients with very low rectal cancer: an active approach to avoid a permanent colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(04):459–66.
28. Tiret E, Poupardin B, McNamara D, Dehni N, Parc R. Ultralow anterior resection with intersphincteric dissection–what is the limit of safe sphincter preser­vation? Colorectal Dis. 2003;5(05):454–7.
29. Vorobiev GI, Odaryuk TS, Tsarkov PV, Talalakin AI, Rybakov EG.Resection of the rectum and total exci­sion of the internal anal sphincter with smooth muscle plasty and colonic pouch for treatment of ultralow rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2004;91(11):1506–12.
30. Williams NS, Dixon MF, Johnston D.Reappraisal of the 5 centimeter rule of distal excision for carcinoma of the rectum: a study of distal intramural spread and of patients’ survival. Br J Surg. 1983;70(03):150–4.
31. Golligher JC, Dukes CE, Bussey HJR.Local recur­rences after sphincter saving excisions for carci­noma of the rectum and rectosigmoid. Br J Surg. 1951;39:199–211.
32. Pahlman L, Bujko K, Rutkowski A, Michalski W. Altering the therapeutic paradigm towards a dis­tal bowel margin of <1cm in patients with low-lying
rectal cancer: a systematic review and commentary. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(04):e166–74.
33. Pollett WG, Nicholls RJ.The relationship between the extent of distal clearance and survival and local recur­rence rates after curative anterior resection for carci­noma of the rectum. Ann Surg. 1983;198:159–63.
34. Kiran RP, Lian L, Lavery IC. Does a subcenti­meter distal resection margin adversely inuence oncologic outcomes in patients with rectal cancer undergoing restorative proctectomy? Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(2):157–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/
DCR.0b013e3181fc9378.
35. Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, et al. Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospec­tive study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG C016 randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9666):821–8.
36. Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS.Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inad­equate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet. 1986;2(8514):996–9.
37. Rullier E, Laurent C, Bretagnol F, Rullier A, Vendrely V, Zerbib F.Sphincter-saving resection for all rectal carcinomas: the end of the 2-cm distal rule. Ann Surg. 2005;241(03):465–9.
38. Rullier E, Denost Q, Vendrely V, Rullier A, Laurent C.Low rectal cancer: classication and standardization of surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(05):560–7.
39. Atallah SB, DuBose AC, Burke JP, Nassif G, DeBeche-Adams T, Frering T, Albert MR, Monson JRT. Uptake of transanal total mesorectal excision in North America: initial assessment of a structured training program and the experience of delegate sur­geons. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(10):1023–31.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000823.
40. Adamina M, Buchs NC, Penna M, Hompes R, St.Gallen Colorectal Consensus Expert Group. St.Gallen consensus on safe implementation of transanal total mesorectal excision. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(3):1091–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00464-017-5990-2. Epub 2017 Dec 12.
41. Abbott SC, Stevenson ARL, Bell SW, Clark D, Merrie A, Hayes J, Ganesh S, Heriot AG, Warrier SK. An assessment of an Australasian pathway for the introduction of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). Colorectal Dis. 2018;20(1):O1–6. https://
doi.org/10.1111/codi.13964.
42. Francis N, Penna M, Mackenzie H, Carter F, Hompes R, International TaTME Educational Collaborative Group. Consensus on structured training curriculum for transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Surg Endosc. 2017;31(7):2711–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00464-017-5562-5. Epub 2017 May 1.
43. Penna M, Whiteford M, Hompes R, Sylla P.Developing and assessing a cadaveric training model for transanal total mesorectal excision: initial experience in the UK and USA.Colorectal Dis. 2017;19(5):476–84. https://
doi.org/10.1111/codi.13525.
28 Strategies for Ultralow-Lying Rectal Cancer
295
44. Aigner F, Biebl M, Fürst A, Jöns T, Pratschke J, Kneist W.Training course transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME): concept and establishment of a training course for safe application. Chirurg. 2017;88(2):147–
54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-016-0295-x.
45. Penna M, Hompes R, Mackenzie H, Carter F, Francis NK.First international training and assessment con­sensus workshop on transanal total mesorectal exci­sion (taTME). Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20(6):343–52.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1454-2. Epub
2016 Mar 25.
46. McLemore EC, Harnsberger CR, Broderick RC, Leland H, Sylla P, Coker AM, Fuchs HF, Jacobsen GR, Sandler B, Attaluri V, Tsay AT, Wexner SD, Talamini MA, Horgan S.Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: a training path­way. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(9):4130–5. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00464-015-4680-1. Epub 2015 Dec 10.
47. Knol J, Keller DS. Cognitive skills training in digital era: a paradigm shift in surgical educa­tion using the TaTME model. Surgeon. 2018:pii: S1479-666X(18)30042-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
surge.2018.03.008. [Epub ahead of print].
48. Atallah S, Brady RR.The iLappSurgery taTME app: a modern adjunct to the teaching of surgical tech­niques. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20(9):665–6. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1509-4. Epub 2016
Aug 8.
49. Knol J, Bonjer J, Houben B, Wexner SD, Hompes R, Atallah S, Heald Cbe RJ, Sietses C, Chadi SA.New paradigm of live surgical education: synchronized deferred live surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2018:pii: S1072-7515(18)31132-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jamcollsurg.2018.07.660. [Epub ahead of print].
50. Mabardy A, Lee L, Valpato AP, Atallah S. Transanal total mesorectal excision with intersphincteric resec­tion and use of uorescent angiography and a lighted urethral stent for distal rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21(7):581–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-
017-1629-5. Epub 2017 May 22.
51. Atallah S, Drake J, Martin-Perez B, Kang C, Larach S. Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision with intersphincteric dissection for extreme distal rectal cancer: a video demonstration. Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19(7):435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-
1304-7. Epub 2015 May 12.
52. Denost Q, Adam JP, Rullier A, Buscail E, Laurent C, Rullier E. Perineal transanal approach: a new standard for laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer, a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260:993–9.
53. Kanso F, Maggiori L, Debove C, Chau A, Ferron M, Panis Y. Perineal or abdominal approach rst during intersphincteric resection for low rectal can­cer: which is the best strategy? Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:637–44.
54. Atallah S. Have we forgotten the most important tenet of oncologic surgery? Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(12):e457–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/
DCR.0000000000000484.
55. Parks AG.A technique for excising extensive villous papillomatous change in the lower rectum. Proc R Soc Med. 1968;61:441–2.
56. Buess G, Theiss R, Günther M, Hutterer F, Pichlmaier H. Endoscopic surgery in the rectum. Endoscopy. 1985;17:31–5.
57. Buess G, Theiss R, Günther M, Hutterer F, Pichlmaier H.Transanal endoscopic microsurgery [in German]. Leber Magen Darm. 1985;15:271–9.
58. Atallah S, Mabardy A, Volpato AP, Chin T, Sneider J, Monson JRT. Surgery beyond the visible light spec­trum: theoretical and applied methods for localization of the male urethra during transanal total mesorec­tal excision. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21(6):413–24.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1641-9. Epub
2017 Jun 6.
59. Atallah S, Albert M, Monson JR. Critical concepts and important anatomic landmarks encountered dur­ing transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME): toward the mastery of a new operation for rectal can­cer surgery. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20(7):483–94.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1475-x. Epub
2016 May 17.
60. Goligher JC, Hughes ES. Sensibility of the rectum and colon. Lancet. 1951;257(6654):543–8.
61. Denost Q, Laurent C, Capdepont M, Zerbib F, Rullier E. Risk factors for fecal incontinence after inter­sphincteric resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(08):963–8.
62. Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, Wynn G, Austin R, Warusavitarne J, Moran B, Hanna GB, Mortensen NJ, Tekkis PP, TaTME Registry Collaborative. Transanal total mesorectal excision: international registry results of the rst 720 cases. Ann Surg. 2017;266(1):111–7.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001948.
63. Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, Wynn G, Austin R, Warusavitarne J, Moran B, Hanna GB, Mortensen NJ, Tekkis PP, International TaTME.Incidence and risk factors for anastomotic failure in 1594 patients treated by transanal total mesorectal excision: results from the international TaTME registry. Ann Surg. 2018;
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002653.
[Epub ahead of print].
64. Havenga K, Enker WE, McDermott K, Cohen AM, Minsky BD, Guillem J.Male and female sexual and urinary function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for carcinoma of the rectum. J Am Coll Surg. 1996;182(06):495–502.
65. Enker WE. Potency, cure, and local control in the operative treatment of rectal cancer. Arch Surg. 1992;127(12):1396–401, discussion 1402.
66. Adam JP, Denost Q, Capdepont M, van Geluwe B, Rullier E.Prospective and longitudinal study of uro­genital dysfunction after protectomy for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(09):822–30.
67. Pontallier A, Denost Q, Van Geluwe B, Adam JP, Celerier B, Rullier E. Potential sexual function improvement by using transanal mesorectal approach for laparoscopic low rectal cancer excision. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(11):4924–33.
296
S. Atallah and E. Rullier
68. Denost Q, Rullier E.Intersphincteric resection push­ing the envelope for sphincter preservation. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2017;30(5):368–76. https://doi.
org/10.1055/s-0037-1606114. Epub 2017 Nov 27.
69. Ursi P, Santoro A, Gemini A, Arezzo A, Pironi D, Renzi C, Cirocchi R, Di Matteo FM, Maturo A, D’Andrea V, Sagar J. Comparison of outcomes fol­lowing intersphincteric resection vs low anterior resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review. G Chir. 2018;39(3):123–42.
70. Saito N, Moriya Y, Shirouzu K, etal. Intersphincteric resection inpatients with very low rectal cancer: a review of the Japanese experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:S13–22.
71. Saito N, Sugito M, Ito M, Kobayashi A, Nishizawa Y, Yoneyama Y, Nishizawa Y, Minagawa N. Oncologic outcome of intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer. World J Surg. 2009;33(8):1750–6.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0079-2.
72. Portier G, Ghouti L, Kirzin S, Guimbaud R, Rives M, Lazorthes F. Oncological outcome of ultra-low colo­anal anastomosis with and without intersphincteric resection for low rectal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2007;94:341–5.
73. Schiessel R, Karner-Hanusch J, Herbst F, Teleky B, Wunderlich M.Intersphincteric resection for low rec­tal tumors. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1376–8.
74. Shirouzu K, Murakami N, Akagi Y. Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: a review of the updated literature. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2017;1(1):24–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12003. eCollection 2017 Apr.
75. Scala D, Niglio A, Pace U, Ruffolo F, Rega D, Delrio P.Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection: indications and results. Updat Surg. 2016;68(1):85–91. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13304-016-0351-6. Epub 2016 Mar
29.
76. Watanabe M, Teramoto T, Hasegawa H, Kitajima M. Laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection com­bined with per anum intersphincteric rectal dissec­tion for lower rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43(Suppl):S94–7.
77. Laurent C, Paumet T, Leblanc F, Denost Q, Rullier E. Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open surgery approach. Colorectal Dis. 2010;14:35–43.
78. Martin ST, Heneghan HM, Winter DC. Systematic review of outcomes after intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012;99:603–12.
79. Denost Q, Loughlin P, Chevalier R, Celerier B, Didailler R, Rullier E.Transanal versus abdominal low rectal dissection for rectal cancer: long-term results of the Bordeaux’ randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(3):1486–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-
017-5836-y. Epub 2017 Oct 24.
80. Watanabe J, Ishibe A, Suwa Y, Suwa H, Momiyama M, Ota M, Endo I.Surgical techniques for identica­tion of the prostate gland using the autonomic nerve as a landmark during transanal total mesorectal exci­sion: secure dissection of the male rectourethral mus-
cle. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(8):999–1000. https://
doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000001138.
81. Schrag D, Weiser MR, Goodman KA, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy without routine use of radiation therapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a pilot trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:513–8.
82. Bossé D, Mercer J, Raissouni S, Dennis K, Goodwin R, Jiang D, Powell E, Kumar A, Lee-Ying R, Price­Hiller J, Heng DY, Tang PA, MacLean A, Cheung WY, Vickers MM.PROSPECT eligibility and clinical out­comes: results from the pan-Canadian rectal cancer consortium. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016;15(3):243–
9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcc.2016.02.003. Epub 2016 Feb 13.
83. Roxburgh CS, Weiser MR.Selective use of radiation for locally advanced rectal cancer: one size does not t all. Minerva Chir. 2018; https://doi.org/10.23736/
S0026-4733.18.07791-X. [Epub ahead of print].
84. Smith CA, Kachnic LA. Evolving treatment para­digm in the treatment of locally advanced rectal can­cer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16(7):909–15.
https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.7032.
85. Cercek A, Roxburgh CSD, Strombom P, Smith JJ, Temple LKF, Nash GM, Guillem JG, Paty PB, Yaeger R, Stadler ZK, Seier K, Gonen M, Segal NH, Reidy DL, Varghese A, Shia J, Vakiani E, Wu AJ, Crane CH, Gollub MJ, Garcia-Aguilar J, Saltz LB, Weiser MR. Adoption of total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(6):e180071. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaon-
col.2018.0071. Epub 2018 Jun 14.
86. George TJ Jr, Wu C, You YN.NRG GI002: moving the needle toward TNT inlocally advanced rectal can­cer. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2016;101(10):61–2.
87. Ludmir EB, Palta M, Willett CG, Czito BG. Total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: an emerging option. Cancer. 2017;123(9):1497–506. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cncr.30600. Epub 2017 Mar 10.
88. Habr-Gama A, Sabbaga J, Gama-Rodrigues J, et al. Watch and wait approach following extended neoad­juvant chemoradiation for distal rectal cancer: are we getting closer to anal cancer management? Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:1109–17.
89. Vailati BB, Habr-Gama A, Mattacheo AE, et al. Quality of life in patients with rectal cancer after chemoradiation: watch-and-wait policy versus stan­dard resection-are we comparing apples to oranges? Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61:e21.
90. Smith JJ, Chow OS, Gollub MJ, Nash GM, Temple LK, Weiser MR, Guillem JG, Paty PB, Avila K, Garcia-Aguilar J, Rectal Cancer Consortium. Organ Preservation in Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a phase II randomized controlled trial evaluating 3-year disease­free survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with chemoradiation plus induction or consolidation chemotherapy, and total mesorec­tal excision or nonoperative management. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:767. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12885-015-1632-z.
28 Strategies for Ultralow-Lying Rectal Cancer
297
91. Appelt AL, Ploen J, Harling H, et al. High-dose chemoradiotherapy and watchful waiting for dis­tal rectal cancer: a prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:919–27.
92. de Lacy FB, van Laarhoven JJEM, Pena R, Arroyave MC, Bravo R, Cuatrecasas M, Lacy AM. Transanal
total mesorectal excision: pathological results of 186 patients with mid and low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(5):2442–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-
017-5944-8. Epub 2017 Nov 3.
Critical Anatomical Landmarks inTransanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME)
StephenW.Bell
29

Introduction

The advancement of transanal endoscopic tech­niques to the surgical management of rectal neo­plasia (particularly for taTME) has led to an improvement in surgical technique but also the development of different potential complications. The cornerstone to all surgical dissection is a clear understanding of and identication of ana­tomical landmarks and the correct and incorrect anatomical planes. The anatomy of the extraperi­toneal rectum is familiar to most practicing colorectal surgeons; however this familiarity is predominantly from an abdominal approach, entering the pelvis from above. The anatomy when viewed from below (transanally) is the same; however the view is quite different, and this necessitates a relearning of the anatomy as it is seen from this direction. This chapter will focus on the applied surgical anatomy required for a transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). It will not detail all anatomic structures of the anorectum, pelvis, and pelvic oor as this is assumed knowledge.
The description of the anatomy will follow the
steps of the operation:
S. W. Bell (*) Cabrini Monash University Department of Surgery, Malvern, VIC, Australia
Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
1. The anorectal junction and the pelvic oor.
2. Luminal anatomy of the rectum in relation to the purse string.
3. Rectal wall layers in relation to the rectotomy.
4. The extrafascial, subserosal, and sub­endopelvic fascia planes.
5. Variations in pelvic oor anatomy.
6. Maintaining the correct plane and signs of changing planes.
7. (a) Too deep posteriorly: presacral veins and the sacrum, (b) Too deep laterally: major ves­sels, the ureter, and the “pelvic tonsils”. (c) Too deep anteriorly: vagina, prostate, and urethra
8. Entering the peritoneal cavity.
The Anorectal Junction andthePelvic Floor
The three-dimensional anatomy at and around the anorectal junction can be complex and variable. There are multiple tissue planes, which vary depending on the height within the bowel and also radial position. The tissue planes are different anteriorly from posteriorly, and there are varia­tions between women and men. The position of the tumor will determine the position of the purse string and subsequently the position of the rectot­omy. It is important to have a clear idea of where the rectotomy will be and how this relates to the anal sphincters and pelvic oor. The circular
© 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_29
299
300
S. W. Bell
muscle coat of the rectum is in continuity with the internal anal sphincter. The external anal sphinc­ter is in continuity with puborectalis and the pel­vic oor muscles. The longitudinal muscle of the rectum continues rostrally in the intersphincteric plane, thinning signicantly and fanning out in the lower anal canal to be relatively unrecogniz­able. When the rectotomy is positioned above the anorectal junction, the dissection usually falls straight on to the cranial side of the endopelvic fascia (posteriorly) in the correct plane for further dissection. When the dissection starts as a partial intersphincteric dissection in the mid-to-upper anal canal, this can often lead to dissection over puborectalis but rostral to the endopelvic fascia. In the common situation of the rectotomy being at the anorectal junction, it remains important to identify the endopelvic fascia and stay on the cra­nial side of it but not to dissect in the subserosal plane (see Fig.29.1). There is often very little tis­sue between these two planes as there is usually
little or no mesorectum at this level. The serosa of the bowel is white and is seen “centrally” in the dissection. The endopelvic fascia is a brous structure overlying the skeletal muscle of the pel­vic oor. If the dissection is under the endopelvic fascia, pink skeletal muscle is visible, and it con­tracts when in contact with diathermy.
Luminal Anatomy oftheRectum inRelation tothePurse String
The art of the purse string has been addressed in detail in Chap. 26. As such this will not be dealt with in great detail here. It is important, however, to note that correct positioning of the purse string will lead to a symmetrical indrawing of the rectal wall, with the center of the purse string being centrally placed in the lumen of the bowel. This also distorts the anatomy of the rectal wall and the angle at which one must dissect to pass through the wall perpendicularly. It is necessary to angle outward from the lumen but not at 90 degrees to the lumen. The angle is a little more subtle than this, and depending on the exact posi­tion of the rectotomy and the laxity of the bowel wall, this could be as much as 45 degrees (see Fig.29.2).
Fig. 29.1 MRI scan of the anorectal junction demon­strating the change in angle between the anal canal and the lower rectum. The colored lines indicate potential sites of a rectotomy. The yellow line sits within the anal canal, when a partial intersphincteric dissection is undertaken. The green line sits at the anorectal junction, with the pos­terior aspect being at the level of the puborectalis muscle. The purple line is in the lower rectum above the pelvic oor
Rectal Wall Layers inRelation totheRectotomy
The rectal wall is composed of the mucosa, sub­mucosa, and circular and longitudinal muscle layers, before encountering the mesorectum and
Fig. 29.2 Diagram representing the effect of a purse­string suture on the rectal wall. The indrawing of the mus­cle layers changes the angle of dissection through the rectal wall when performing a rectotomy
Mesorectum
of Denonvilliers
Incised rectosacral
29 Critical Anatomical Landmarks inTransanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME)
301
the extrafascial plane of the mesorectum. It is common to divide each of these layers circumfer­entially before proceeding on to the next layer. As such, one would initially mark out with dia­thermy the planned incision on the mucosa and then divide the mucosa/submucosa and nally divide the muscle layers. The longitudinal bers of the muscle layer are relatively easily visible as white bers and can commonly be easily distin­guished from the underlying bro-fatty tissue (see Fig. 29.3). Once the muscle layer is com-
Fig. 29.3 Operative photograph during rectotomy (with and without annotation). The cut edge of mucosa is seen on the left of the image. The extrafascial plane is seen in the left lower quadrant of the image, and the undivided longitudinal muscle bers are seen in the left upper quad­rant of the image. These muscle bers are seen in live tis­sue as whiter than surrounding tissue
pletely divided circumferentially, the rectal wall is more mobile and often moves cranially under the force of the pneumopelvis. If this “release” has not been observed, then it may well be that the muscle layer has not been completely divided circumferentially.
The Extrafascial, Subserosal, andSub-Endopelvic Fascia Planes
Identication of the extrafascial plane of the mesorectum (the “Holy Plane” as described by Bill Heald when dissecting from the abdomen into the pelvis) is one of the main key anatomical landmarks of the taTME operation. When dis­secting from the abdomen into the pelvis, there is a broad mesorectum separating the extrafascial plane from the subserosal plane. As described above, the point at which one performs the rec­totomy will determine where the extrafascial plane will be encountered when operating transa­nally. The mesorectum at this point is usually either very thin or nonexistent (see Fig.29.4). As such there is very little tissue between the subse­rosal plane, the true extrafascial plane, and the plane under the endopelvic fascia. The rectotomy is most commonly 1–2 cm distal to the lower margin of the tumor. As such any dissection in the subserosal plane brings one closer to the tumor and therefore a threatened positive mar-
Fig. 29.4 Lateral view drawing of extraperitoneal pelvis. The red arrow indicates the common point of the rectotomy. At this point there is little or no mesorectum, meaning there is little tissue differentiation between the subserosal and extrafascial planes
Presacral fascia
fascia
Fascia propria
Incised peritoneum
Incised Fascia
302
Fig. 29.5 Dissection deep to the endopelvic fascia with exposed puborectalis muscle. The red line indicates an inviting loose areolar plane, being too deep. The green line indicates the correct line of dissection, allowing the endopelvic fascia to fall back onto the pelvic oor
gin. As has also been noted, once the rectotomy has been completed circumferentially, the rectal wall tends to be pushed cranially by the pneumo­pelvis. At this point it is important to assess the planes and not be drawn to the loose areolar tis­sue underlying the muscle layer. It is usually best to try to dene the endopelvic fascia as the deep landmark and then proceed to dissect cranial to this. If the endopelvic fascia is lifted and dissec­tion continues in a plane too deep, this will lead the dissection into vital anatomic structures (to be described below) (see Fig.29.5). Exposing the pink skeletal muscle which will contract when contacted by diathermy is an important visual clue– along with recognition of the white brous tissue being retracted centrally, with a visible cut edge distally.
The anterior plane is usually almost horizon-
tal in a direct line with the view from the access channel, and it is most common that the dissect­ing instrument is horizontal when dissecting this plane. If this instrument is angling upward, this may indicate dissection is too anterior. In com­parison, the posterior plane is varying degrees toward the vertical, at times being up to 90
degrees from the angle of the access channel. When beginning the dissection along the pelvic oor posteriorly, the surgeon must be aware of this angle so as to avoid dissecting into the meso-
S. W. Bell
rectum or along the subserosal plane. Familiarity with the specic patient’s MRI scan is important to plan this dissection and have an understanding of the expected changes in angles of dissection to stay in the correct plane.
Variations inPelvic Floor Anatomy
The direction of dissection is primarily deter­mined by the visual cues encountered during the dissection; however there is a lot of additional information that is available on the patient’s preoperative imaging (particularly MRI scan) that can offer a “road map” of what will be expected during the dissection. There is signi­cant variability between patients as to the verti­cality of the pelvic oor and the angles between the anus, lower third of the rectum, and the mid­sacrum. When the surgeon is forewarned of such angles and can be prepared for changes in the direction of dissection, this will assist in avoiding drifting into a deeper plane and caus­ing injury to structures such as the presacral veins and the pelvic autonomic nerves. Figs.6a and 6b highlight this point, with the patient in Fig.29.6a having a very vertical pelvic oor and very little angle between the direction of the anal canal and the lower and the mid-rectum, with the pelvic oor running in a similar direc­tion to the rectal wall. The patient in Fig.29.6b, however, demonstrates a signicant change in direction of ~90 degrees between the anal canal and the lower rectum/pelvic oor. There is another signicant change in direction of almost 90 degrees anterior to the lower sacrum. If the rst angle is not appreciated, it could be possi­ble to dissect into the subserosal plane, thus put­ting the tumor margin at risk. If the second angle is not appreciated, it would be possible to dis­sect into the presacral plane and cause signi­cant bleeding. Albeit that one must pay particular attention to the visual cues during the surgery to keep the dissection in the correct plane, having an awareness of the patient’s particular anatomy is also important to assist guidance of the dissection.
29 Critical Anatomical Landmarks inTransanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME)
303
a
section, and it is possible to dissect quickly over a moderate distance in this plane before realizing the error.
The pneumopelvis provides a very important
clue when the dissection changes planes. When a fascial plane is incised, even only minimally, the gas dissects into the new plane and creates an “O” or “halo” (see Fig.29.7). This is a very important sign to recognize and should cause the surgeon to assess the local anatomy and decide on the correct plane of dissection, either continuing in the original plane or dissecting into the deeper plane if this is believed to be appropriate. Most commonly when the dissec­tion is proceeding in the correct plane, the appearance of an “O” or “halo” signals the sur-
b
geon to avoid the deeper plane and recorrect to the original plane.
Along with the “O” sign, triangles of tissue
are often seen as a response to tissue retraction. When the rectum and mesorectum are retracted away from an area being dissected, the underly­ing tissues of the deeper plane are tented up. The apex of this tented tissue is the point of maximal
Fig. 29.6 (a, b) Vertical pelvic oor (a) and horizontal pelvic oor (b) demonstrating signicant variation between individual patients’ lower pelvic anatomy
Maintaining theCorrect Plane andSigns ofChanging Planes
The point during an operation when the extrafas­cial plane has been clearly dened circumferen­tially is often accompanied by some acceleration in dissection, particularly anteriorly. It remains important to stay in the correct plane, and some of the visual cues can confuse the surgeon lead­ing to inappropriate dissection in a plane that is too deep. The correct plane is an areolar plane, but it must be recognized that this requires active dissection, as opposed to gentle pushing and “pneumodissection.” The plane too deep is a very
inviting loose areolar tissue that needs little dis-
Fig. 29.7 Incising a fascial layer under the pressure of the pneumopelvis creates an often sudden circular open­ing (an “O sign” or “halo sign”). This indicates the dissec­tion has changed planes into a deeper plane. If the dissection was already in the correct plane, then the deeper, often more inviting plane should be avoided (red circle). Dissection should be returned to the top of the green triangle to maintain the original plane of dissection