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
30 Urethral Injury: The New Challenge for taTME
315
understanding of the slope of the sacral curvature and length of the horizontal rectum [13]. Such review also allows the surgeon to evaluate the dissection plane between the prostate and the anterior rectum, including factors that might affect the positioning of this plane including a tight or narrow pelvis, which may push the pros­tate more cephalad and bring the prostatic urethra in closer proximity to the anterior rectum, or a hypertrophied prostate, which may alter the nor­mally inline or horizontal orientation of the rec­toprostatic fascia and anterior dissection plane in taTME [23].
Fig. 30.2 Partial urethral transection during taTME. Anterior taTME dissection proceeds along the incorrect plane, too far superiorly and erroneously head­ing toward the apex of the prostate. The posterior aspect of the prostatic urethral is transected; the injury is recog­nized by visualization of the Foley catheter (white arrow). The dissection is redirected inferiorly and closer to the anterior rectal wall (blue arrow). The correct plane of dis­section between the rectum and prostate is nally identi­ed and dissected, after which the urethral injury is primarily repaired with sutures
In the series of 34 urethral injuries collected by Sylla etal., the most common technical error leading to urethral injury was a failure to identify the correct anterior TME plane or landmarks as noted above, usually because of distortion of tis­sue planes (Sylla etal., manuscript submitted for publication) [15]. Many surgeons noted continu­ing the dissection in the posterior and lateral planes in the face of a difcult anterior dissection can lead to a “drooping” of the prostate into the rectum and actually increases the risk of carrying the dissection along the inferior lobe of the pros­tate, placing the posterior membranous urethra at risk (Figs.30.1 and 30.2).
In addition to recognizing anatomic land­marks, understanding the particular anatomy of a patient undergoing taTME with review of the rec­tal protocol magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prior to the case is critical [13, 16]. This allows the surgeon to review the location of the tumor, height from the anal verge, and circumferential resection margin (CRM). However, as pointed out by Atallah etal., preoperative review of the MRI in midline sagittal section allows for a better

Recognizing Patients at Risk

In addition to understanding critical anatomic landmarks, it is also important to understand patient-specic risk factors that may put certain individuals at higher risk for urethral injury with taTME. As mentioned previously, normal ana­tomic relationships may be distorted in the set­ting of benign prostatic hypertrophy, a large anterior tumor with threatened circumferential radial margin (CRM), a narrow pelvis, or bulky pelvic musculature [13, 23]. Of the 34 cases of urethral injury analyzed by Sylla etal., 33% of patients had a baseline prostatic abnormality, most commonly benign prostatic hypertrophy [15]. Other risk factors include history of prior pelvic radiation, transrectal prostate biopsy, radi­cal prostatectomy, brachytherapy, or other pelvic surgery. Patients with these risk factors are likely to have brosis, scarring, and fusion of the recto­prostatic fascia, leading to unclear dissection planes and increased chance of wrong-plane sur­gery [1]. Finally, tumor characteristics can also increase the risk of urethral injury, with low and anterior tumors posing the highest risk for injury, especially when taTME is completed with partial or complete intersphincteric resection (ISR) [1].

Intraoperative Prevention Strategies

Several intraoperative techniques have been described to help better locate or visualize the correct planes of dissection during taTME.The
316
H. Carmichael and P. Sylla
rst is the use of simple tactile feedback in the form of preoperative digital rectal examination (DRE) [1]. This exam allows for localization of the prostate prior to the start of the operation and identication of geometry of the anterior dissec­tion plane. If the anterior dissection is unclear during the course of taTME, the surgeon can also use this technique to conrm dissection in the correct plane by removing the transanal access port and performing DRE.
There is some data to suggest that use of a two-team strategy as opposed to a one-team strat­egy may reduce the risk of urethral injury. In the review of 34 urethral injuries by Sylla etal., the majority of injuries by both inexperienced and more experienced taTME surgeons occurred dur­ing operations performed using a one-team approach [15]. The two-team approach may lead to better visualization and identication of the correct anatomical planes during taTME.
Finally, in cases of urethral injury, surgeons in the prior study noted that persisting with a taTME approach despite difculties in identifying ana­tomical landmarks and tissue planes was a com­mon reason for injury [15]. It is essential that the surgeon be prepared to change strategy in the face of a difcult dissection and complete the anterior dissection via either a transabdominal or open transperineal approach (similar to the peri­neal portion of an APR). The surgeon should have a low threshold to convert in the face of inability to recognize the correct plane of dissection.

Emerging Technologies

New technologies may help prevent urethral injury, particularly in difcult cases of anatomi­cal distortion as mentioned above. The use of infrared-lighted urethral stents (Infravision Imaging System, Stryker, Inc. Kalamazoo, MI) placed through a clear Foley catheter has been described as a technique to identify the male ure­thra and avoid injury [24, 25]. The stents can be identied with the use of a special infrared lapa­roscopic camera lter and allow for transillumi­nation through up to 12mm of tissue. Multiple
infrared stents can be used at once to improve visualization [1]. Because infrared light is uti­lized, there is minimal heat emission and low risk for tissue damage.
Fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (ICG) has also been used in taTME to identify structures using visualization in the near-infrared wavelength [25]. The dye can be injected system­ically to highlight blood vessels in the operative eld, and due to the fact that near-infrared wave­lengths are more translucent through the same tissue visualized in visible wavelengths, vessels beneath the operative surface can be effectively identied [26]. Peri-tumoral injection of ICG has been used in taTME to better identify planes of dissection, and ICG has also been used to evalu­ate adequacy of blood supply to the rectal anasto­mosis [27]. Recently, transurethral injection of ICG has been used to visualize the urethra in a cadaver model of taTME, demonstrating how this technique could be used to provide better identi­cation of the urethra during taTME to prevent injury [28].
Laparoscopic ultrasound can also be used to identify the urethra during taTME. This tech­nique is widely used in other surgical disciplines for tumor localization and identication of ana­tomic landmarks [29, 30]. A similar technique can be used in taTME to visualize the prostate and detect the urethra by means of color Doppler ultrasound imaging and irrigation through a Foley catheter. This technique has been described by Atallah etal. although it is not commonly used in practice [1].
Finally, the use of real-time stereotactic navi­gation for taTME has been described and used in a small pilot study of three patients with anterior rectal cancer [31, 32]. This technique uses spe­cialized software to integrate preoperative imag­ing and camera image to locate the position of surgical instruments relative to multi-planar MRI or CT images or a three-dimensional rendering of the operative eld. This technique can success­fully identify the prostate and urethra and prevent wrong-plane surgery; however, it is limited by its inability to differentiate between the contiguous planes of the mesorectal envelope and surround­ing endopelvic fascia, which puts the nearby
30 Urethral Injury: The New Challenge for taTME
317
autonomic nerves at risk [31]. Furthermore, this technique is limited to specialized centers with the required equipment and requires imaging immediately preoperatively, which can lead to substantial increases in operative time [1].

Conclusions

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a promising new approach to distal and mid-rectal cancer but is associated with a risk for iatrogenic injury to the male urethra. Although rates of injury reported in the literature are low, this likely underestimates the true incidence of this compli­cation. Urethral injury may become more com­mon as use of taTME becomes more widespread. Structured taTME training that incorporates extensive didactics on perineal anatomy and strategies to avoid organ injuries (as well as the ability to promptly recognize and repair them), cadaver training, and proctored surgery with a mentor surgeon can help minimize urethral injury in the future. Additionally, new techniques using infrared and near-visual light spectrum imaging may be helpful in identifying the urethra and pre­venting injury.

References

1. 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;21:413–24.
2. Motson RW, Whiteford MH, Hompes R, Albert M, Miles WF. Current status of trans-anal total meso­rectal excision (TaTME) following the Second International Consensus Conference. Colorectal Dis. 2016;18:13–8.
3. Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, Wynn G, Austin R, Warusavitarne J, etal. Incidence and risk factors for anastomotic failure in 1594 patients treated by trans­anal total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg. 2018;1
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002653.
4. Sawkar HP, Kim DY, Thum DJ, Zhao L, Cashy J, Bjurlin M, et al. Frequency of lower urinary tract injury after gastrointestinal surgery in the nationwide inpatient sample database. Am Surg. 2014;80(12):1216–21.
5. Rouanet P, Mourregot A, Azar CC, Carrere S, Gutowski M, Quenet F, et al. Transanal endoscopic proctectomy: an innovative procedure for difcult resection of rectal tumors in men with narrow pelvis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:408–15.
6. Lacy AM, Tasende MM, Delgado S, Fernandez-Hevia M, Jimenez M, De Lacy B, et al. Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: outcomes after 140 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:415–23.
7. Veltcamp Helbach M, Deijen CL, Velthuis S, Bonjer HJ, Tuynman JB, Sietses C. Transanal total meso­rectal excision for rectal carcinoma: short-term out­comes and experience after 80 cases. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:464–70.
8. Chen C-C, Lai Y-L, Jiang J-K, Chu C-H, Huang I-P, Chen W-S, et al. Transanal total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer receiv­ing neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a matched case– control study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:1169–76.
9. Burke JP, Martin-Perez B, Khan A, Nassif G, DeBeche-Adams T, Larach SW, et al. Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: early out­comes in 50 consecutive patients. Colorectal Dis. 2016;18(6):570–7.
10. Kang L, Chen W-H, Luo S-L, Luo Y-X, Liu Z-H, Huang M-J, etal. Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a preliminary report. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(6):2552–62.
11. Perdawood SK, Thinggaard BS, Bjoern MX. Effect of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes with laparoscopic and open surgeries. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(5):2312–21.
12. Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, Wynn G, Austin R, Warusavitarne J, et al. Transanal total mesorectal excision: international registry results of the rst 720 cases. Ann Surg. 2017;266(1):111–7.
13. Atallah S, Albert M, Monson JRT.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;20:483–94.
14. Atallah SB, DuBose AC, Burke JP, Nassif G, DeBeche-Adams T, Frering T, etal. Uptake of trans­anal total mesorectal excision in North America. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60:1023–31.
15. Sylla P, Knol J, D’Andrea A, Perez R, Atallah S, Pena M, et al. Urethral injury and other urologic injuries during transanal total mesorectal excision, an interna­tional collaborative study. [Ahead to print].
16. Atallah S, Albert M. The neurovascular bundle of Walsh and other anatomic considerations crucial in preventing urethral injury in males undergoing trans­anal total mesorectal excision. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20:411–2.
17. Maykel JA, Phatak UR, Suwanabol PA, Schlussel AT, Davids JS, Sturrock PR, et al. Initiation of a transanal total mesorectal excision program at an academic training program. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60:1267–72.
318
H. Carmichael and P. Sylla
18. Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prosta­tectomy with preservation of sexual function: ana­tomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983;4:473–85.
19. Aigner F, Hörmann R, Fritsch H, Pratschke J, D’Hoore A, Brenner E, et al. Anatomical considerations for transanal minimal-invasive surgery: the caudal to cephalic approach. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:O47–53.
20. Stitt L, Flores FA, Dhalla SS. Urethral injury in laparoscopic- assisted abdominoperineal resection. Can Urol AssocJ. 2015;9:E900–2.
21. Harris MJ. The anatomic radical perineal prosta­tectomy: an outcomes-based evolution. Eur Urol. 2007;52:81–8.
22. Uchimoto K, Murakami G, Kinugasa Y, Arakawa T, Matsubara A, Nakajima Y.Rectourethralis muscle and pitfalls of anterior perineal dissection in abdomino­perineal resection and intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. Anat Sci Int. 2007;82:8–15.
23. Marecik SJ, Pai A, Sheikh T, Park JJ, Prasad LM. Transanal total mesorectal excision: save the nerves and urethra. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59:e410–4.
24. Atallah S, Martin-Perez B, Drake J, Stotland P, Ashamalla S, Albert M.The use of a lighted stent as a method for identifying the urethra in male patients undergoing transanal total mesorectal excision: a video demonstration. Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19:375–5.
25. 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;21:581–2.
26. Alander JT, Kaartinen I, Laakso A, Patila T, Spillmann T, Tuchin VV, et al. A review of indocyanine green uorescent imaging in surgery. Int J Biomed Imaging. 2012;2012:940585.
27. Dapri G, Cahill R, Bourgeois P, Liberale G, Galdon Gomez M, Cadière G-B. Peritumoral indocyanine green uorescence injection during transanal total mesorectal excision to identify the plane of dissection. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19(6):599–600.
28. Barnes TG, Penna M, Hompes R, Cunningham C. Fluorescence to highlight the urethra: a human cadaveric study. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21:439–44.
29. John TG, Greig JD, Crosbie JL, Miles WF, Garden OJ. Superior staging of liver tumors with lapa­roscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound. Ann Surg. 1994;220:711–9.
30. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnor­mal prostate. J Urol. 1989;142:66–70.
31. Atallah S, Martin-Perez B, Larach S. Image-guided real-time navigation for transanal total meso­rectal excision: a pilot study. Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19:679–84.
32. Atallah S, Nassif G, Larach S.Stereotactic navigation for TAMIS-TME: opening the gateway to frameless, image-guided abdominal and pelvic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:207–11.
33. de Lacy AM, Rattner DW, Adelsdorfer C, Tasende MM, Fernández M, Delgado S, etal. Transanal natu­ral orice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) rectal resection: “down-to-up” total mesorectal exci­sion (TME)—short-term outcomes in the rst 20 cases. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3165–72.
34. Velthuis S, Nieuwenhuis DH, Ruijter TEG, Cuesta MA, Bonjer HJ, Sietses C. Transanal versus tradi­tional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3494–9.
35. Atallah S, Martin-Perez B, Albert M, DeBeche­Adams T, Nassif G, Hunter L, et al. Transanal mini­mally invasive surgery for total mesorectal excision (TAMIS–TME): results and experience with the rst 20 patients undergoing curative-intent rectal can­cer surgery at a single institution. Tech Coloproctol. 2014;18:473–80.
36. Fernández-Hevia M, Delgado S, Castells A, Tasende M, Momblan D, Díaz del Gobbo G, etal. Transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2015;261:221–7.
37. Tuech J-J, Karoui M, Lelong B, De Chaisemartin C, Bridoux V, Manceau G, et al. A step toward NOTES total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2015;261:228–33.
38. Muratore A, Mellano A, Marsanic P, De Simone M. Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for cancer located in the lower rectum: short- and mid­term results. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:478–83.
39. Perdawood SK, Al Khefagie GAA.Transanal vs lapa­roscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial experience from Denmark. Colorectal Dis. 2016;18:51–8.
40. Buchs NC, Nicholson GA, Yeung T, Mortensen NJ, Cunningham C, Jones OM, et al. Transanal rectal resection: an initial experience of 20 cases. Colorectal Dis. 2016;18:45–50.
41. de’Angelis N, Portigliotti L, Azoulay D, Brunetti F. Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single center experience and systematic review of the literature. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2015;400:945–59.
42. Rink AD, Kauff DW, Paschold M, Vestweber K-H, Lang H, Kneist W.Hybrid-TAMIS totale mesorektale Exzision. Der Chir. 2016;87:225–32.
43. Serra-Aracil X, Mora-López L, Casalots A, Pericay C, Guerrero R, Navarro-Soto S.Hybrid NOTES: TEO for transanal total mesorectal excision: intracorporeal resection and anastomosis. Surg Endosc. 2016;30: 346–54.
44. Rasulov AO, Mamedli ZZ, Gordeyev SS, Kozlov NA, Dzhumabaev HE. Short-term outcomes after trans­anal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20:227–34.
45. Buchs NC, Wynn G, Austin R, Penna M, Findlay JM, Bloemendaal ALA, etal. A two-centre experience of transanal total mesorectal excision. Colorectal Dis. 2016;18:1154–61.
46. Lelong B, Meillat H, Zemmour C, Poizat F, Ewald J, Mege D, et al. Short- and mid-term outcomes after
30 Urethral Injury: The New Challenge for taTME
319
endoscopic transanal or laparoscopic transabdominal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a sin­gle institutional case-control study. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224:917–25.
47. Marks JH, Myers EA, Zeger EL, Denittis AS, Gummadi M, Marks GJ. Long-term outcomes by a transanal appro`ach to total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(12):5248–57.
48. Caycedo-Marulanda A, Jiang HY, Kohtakangas EL. Transanal minimally invasive surgery for
benign large rectal polyps and early malignant rec­tal cancers: experience and outcomes from the rst Canadian centre to adopt the technique. Can J Surg. 2017;60:416–23.
49. de Lacy FB, van Laarhoven JJEM, Pena R, Arroyave MC, Bravo R, Cuatrecasas M, etal. Transanal total mesorectal excision: pathological results of 186 patients with mid and low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(5):2442–7.

How to Avoid Urethral Injury in Males

Sam Atallah and Itzel Vela
31

Introduction

With early experience in taTME, it became evi­dent that a new type of procedure-specic, gender- specic morbidity had emerged, as described by one of the original clinical series on this new operation by P. Rouanet [1]. Namely, this was iatrogenic injury to the male urethra dur­ing the transanal dissection. In this 2013 series by Rouanet, taTME (then using the moniker trans­anal endoscopic proctectomy (TAEP)) was per­formed utilizing the transanal endoscopic operating (TEO) platform. Of the 30 male patients who underwent taTME, two (6.7%) had iatrogenic injury to the urethra. Subsequently, Burke etal. reported initial outcomes of taTME with 50 consecutive patients (male and female) using the transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) platform whereby a single urethral injury occurred [2]. Importantly, urethral injury during taTME is specic to males. There were 30 male patients in this series by Burke etal., and thus the gender-adjusted incidence of urethral injury was 1/30 (3.3%).
S. Atallah (*) AdventHealth Orlando, Oviedo Medical Center, and University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, FL, USA e-mail: atallah@post.harvard.edu
I. Vela Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico City, Mexico
The true incidence of urethral injury is dif­cult to ascertain, and reports vary in the frequency of this complication, including a recent series on taTME for mid and low rectal cancer in which no injuries were observed in the study group of 186 patients [3]. Funded by the Pelican Foundation, the Low Rectal Cancer Development (LOREC) database has been used to collect and register clinical and pathologic details on taTME opera­tions, as self-reported by surgeons. While subject to reporting bias, this data was analyzed by M.Penna etal. on behalf of the taTME registry collaborative [4]. It revealed that, of the 720 taTME operations performed for benign and malignant disease, 489 (67.9) were male. There were ve urethral injuries (presumably all male patients), and thus the observed incidence of this morbidity in the registry data was 5/489 (1%).
While generally it appears that the risk of ure­thral injury is 5%, this may not accurately reect the true incidence of this morbidity as there are several anecdotal cases of urethral injury that are currently unpublished. Furthermore, other data are available to suggest that the risk of urethral injury may indeed be sig­nicantly higher. Much of this is based on data gathered from training courses and analysis of the uptake of taTME in clinical practice. To date, in the largest training center in North America, over 220 surgeons have received specialized cadaveric-based training, and during wet lab ses­sions, it was observed that 1in 5 delegate trainee
© 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_31
321
322
teams would inadvertently mobilized the prostate during taTME [5]. In the same study, it was also found that, upon course completion, 25% of sur­vey respondents reported having had a urethral injury after implementing a taTME program at their respective institutions [5]. Even inadvertent exenteration by delegate surgeons was observed at these cadaveric training sessions, highlighting the gravity and scope of potential iatrogenic injury to the urinary system [6]. Based on this, the importance of this potentially catastrophic complication must be very carefully understood.
Although urethral injury has been described with the abdominoperineal resection (APR), it is uncommon, and urethral injury with sphincter­preserving rectal extirpation appears to only be a risk with taTME [6]. Even when compared to the transanal abdominal transanal (TATA) operation (often considered the prequel to the modern-day taTME), the incidence of urethral injury distinctly differs [69], and this can be attributed to the con­stant tactile feedback surgeons utilize during TATA to conrm the position of the prostate gland, a subtle yet crucial distinction between taTME and TATA. Notwithstanding, male urethral injury appears to be contingent upon a perineal approach to organ extirpation. Here, the factors related to urethral injury during taTME are analyzed and discussed. Avoiding male urethral injury during taTME represents one of the most paramount modules in training and is absolutely essential to the maturation of the taTME surgeon.
Specific Point of Urethral Injury
Male urethral injury occurs during distal anterior dissection, when the anterior taTME rectotomy lies within 3cm from the anorectal ring [10]. With distal dissection, the prostate can be dis­tracted dorsally, and, in the process, the pre­membranous urethra can become exposed leading to iatrogenic injury to its posterior aspect (Fig.31.1). Immediate recognition of the urinary catheter has prevented complete urethra disrup­tion, and to date, invivo urethral injury has not involved complete transection through the ven­tral wall of the urethra.
S. Atallah and I. Vela
Fig. 31.1 The anatomic relationship of the prostate gland and urethra in relation to the rectum during distal taTME dissection can place the pre-membranous portion of the urethra at risk for iatrogenic injury. Note the “vertical” presentation of the urethra which is typical when the pros­tate gland is dorsally distracted

Assessment of Patient Risk for Injury

The rst step is to assess the patient’s indepen­dent risk of urethral injury during taTME [6]. This is important for surgeons to understand beforehand and is considered a vital step in case preparedness. The objective is to risk-stratify patients for the potential for this injury, since not all patients pose the same risk for urethral injury [6, 10]. As detailed in Table31.1, urethral injury risk stratication is dependent upon these six fac­tors: (a) prior local therapy, (b) previous local operations, (c) congenital malformations of the genitourinary system, or a history of male pelvic penetrating or blunt trauma, (d) pre-existing his­tory of benign prostatic hypertrophy or pathology intrinsic to the male urethra, (e) history of prior, especially chronic or recurrent inammatory dis­ease of the anus, rectum, or prostate, and (f) tumor-specic factors– such as is the case for radiated, low-lying anterior and xed lesions which exhibit desmoplastic changes. Such locally advanced cancers pose a challenge for surgical clearance and, with taTME, may dorsally distract the prostate-urethral complex in the process, which could place the organ structures at risk for injury.
Patients who possess signicant risk of ure­thral injury based on preoperative assessment, including the six categories mentioned, should be
31 How to Avoid Urethral Injury in Males?
323
Table 31.1 Patient-related factors which could poten­tially increase the risk of iatrogenic urethral injury in males undergoing taTME
Previous nonoperative local therapy
Prior external beam radiotherapy neoadjuvant treatment
Prior external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer treatment
Prior implantation of radiation seeds Prior injection of SpaceOAR® hydrogel (possible)
Previous local operations of the anus, rectum, or prostate
Prior radical prostatectomy Prior prostate biopsies (multiple) Prior anterior local excision in the distal rectum (via
TEM, TEO, TAMIS) Prior surgical treatment of complex anorectal stulae
and abscess Prior rectourethral stula repaired via any approach Prior implantation of articial urinary or anal
sphincter
History of congenital malformations or trauma
History of pelvic trauma with urethral transection or urethroplasty
History of imperforate anus congenital malformations of the rectum, urethra, and urogenital diaphragm
History of prior rectourethral stula repaired via any approach
Factors related to intrinsic disease of the prostatic and membranous urethra
Benign prostatic hypertrophy Synchronous prostate cancer Urethral stricture(s) Difcult urinary (Foley) catheter insertion at the time
of surgery Factors related to local sepsis Prior pelvic sepsis, for instance, related to ileal pouch
failure Complex, chronic anterior stulae (e.g.,
suprasphincteric, extrasphincteric) Recent or active prostatitis Recent or active urethritis
Factors related to the rectal tumor
Low lying, xed tumor 3cm from anal verge Anterior, distal rectal cancer 3cm from the anal
verge Tumor abutting the prostate with limited CRM based
on imaging
considered for alternative approaches, including laparoscopic and robotic abdominal techniques to accessing the deep pelvis. Even the sphincter­preserving TATA operation may hold an advan-
Table 31.2 Steps to prevent urethral injury during taTME
1. Assess preoperative imaging (midsagittal rectal MRI); assess the shape and size of the prostate gland; recognize which patients may be at increased risk for urethral injury.
2. Prior to initiating taTME, the surgeon should
perform a digital rectal exam; in addition to feeling for the tumor in low rectal cancers, the prostate should be examined by palpation, and its size, shape, and relative position should be noted.
3. When there is uncertainty about the anterior plane during dissection, the taTME platform should be removed, and the prostate gland should be reassessed by palpation.
4. Utilize the urinary catheter in a way analogous to a
ureteral stent. When the prostate gland is inadvertently mobilized, the catheter can be palpated once the taTME platform has been removed.
5. Detection of applied vibratory or pulling (tugging)
motion to urinary catheter, with simultaneous palpation.
6. Use of a lighted, infrared urethral stent placed
through a clear-coated urinary catheter.
7. Use of injected indocyanine green for localization
of the male urethra (currently experimental).
8. Critical understanding of the neurovascular bundle
of Walsh and its relationship to the prostatic capsule.
9. Critical understanding of the morphology of the
mobilized posterior lobe of the prostate gland.
10. Critical understanding of the extra-rectal muscle
structure, including the rectourethralis muscle, the bers of Luschka, and the anterior sling of the puborectalis.
11. Understand the effect of perceptual completion,
loss of frame of reference, and human factors that can predispose to improper plane dissection and injury to the urethra.
12. Comprehension that uncertainty about the position
of the prostate gland and urethra mandates discontinuation of taTME and completion of the operation abdominally.
tage over taTME in this setting as it is conducted with constant tactile feedback to conrm the position of the prostate gland and urethra.
Nevertheless, with requisite training and expe­rience, a taTME technique can still be successfully executed, and adjunctive techniques to localize the urethra in an effort to minimize iatrogenic injury can be employed [6, 10, 11]. These are delineated in Table 31.2, and crucial anatomic pearls and
324
important nuances of taTME related to urethral injury prevention are detailed in the following sections.

The Rectourethralis Muscle and the Pre-rectal Muscle Fibers of Luschka

The rst step in the transanal portion of taTME is the application of the purse string [12, 13]. Care must be taken to have symmetric suture bites which do not extend beyond the outer, longitudi­nal muscle of the rectum as this can inadvertently incorporate tissue that is beyond the scope of dis­section, such as the periprostatic fascia and extra­rectal muscle bers intrinsic to the pelvic oor. However, even with correct purse-string place­ment, entry into the proper TME plane– espe­cially anteriorly– can sometimes be challenging because an often dense structure is encountered, and this can create a barrier to holy plane entry. This specically applies to taTME dissections carried out 3 cm of the anorectal ring. Extra­rectal bands of muscle extend from the rectum are properly inserted onto the endopelvic fascia and the preprostatic fascia [1418]. This is the most pronounced anterior to the rectum and likely represents a composite of the pre-rectal muscle bers of Luschka and the rectourethralis muscle, both of which lie medial to the puborec­talis and the levator ani muscle complex (Fig.31.2). They also contain muscle bers from the conjoined longitudinal muscle of the anal canal. Anteriorly, the rectourethralis and pre­rectal muscle appear fused, becoming quite dened. During the taTME dissection, they appear as broad “vertical” bands of muscle extending from the pre-membranous urethra and posterior lobe of the prostate gland to the anterior rectal wall which makes distinction between the two organs difcult to discern (Fig.31.3). A com- mon error is to assume that these bands of muscle “belong to the rectum” and novice taTME sur­geons will tend to include the rectourethralis muscle and bers of Luschka in the specimen by purposely dissecting too far anteriorly. This is one of the most important factors predisposing to
S. Atallah and I. Vela
Fig. 31.2 An anatomic plate delineates the muscles of the pelvic oor in relation to the prostate gland, urethra, and taTME apparatus. The rst step after purse-string application is to divide the rectal wall, which is often thickened anteriorly as it is fused with the bers of Luschka and the rectourethralis muscle. The surgeon must transect these attachments when operating distally to enter the holy plane. The contiguous muscle bers appear homogenous from the taTME perspective, and this makes proper division challenging. Note the puborectalis muscle anking the prostate gland. This is the skeletal muscle that becomes visible anteriorly when the prostate gland is inadvertently mobilized
male urethral injury. Thus, taTME surgeons, spe­cically when performing the distal anterior rec­tal dissection, must remain vigilant of these factors and must have a remastered comprehen­sion of the relevant extra-rectal muscle anatomy.

Morphology of the Prostate Gland and Urethra

Should the prostate gland become mobilized dur­ing taTME, the posterior lobe will be distinctly recognizable as a pale-yellow spherical and sym­metric gland that is characteristically smooth [19]. Surgeons may sometimes confuse this “mass” anteriorly for that of an anterior positioned rectal tumor. However, the smooth contour of the mobi­lized gland is not a characteristic of invasive rectal cancer. Furthermore, the cylindrical urethra can
31 How to Avoid Urethral Injury in Males?
Fig. 31.3 The anterior, distal taTME dissection presents the surgeon with an obscure sheet of muscle that directly communicates with the rectal wall and is contiguous with the rectourethralis and muscle of bers of Luschka. The challenge for the operator is to transect this muscle bundle at a point that precisely separates the prostate gland from the anterior rectal wall without injury to either structure
325
also be seen at the 12 o’clock position (Fig.31.4). Finally, the mobilized prostate appears as a sepa­rate structure ventral to the anterior, mobilized rec­tum, and the two structures together form the shape of a gure “8” [20], and surgeons should be trained to quickly discern this. To do so, taTME surgeons are encourage to maintain a global view during dissection– such that the purse string and rectum remain in view as this provides an impor­tant frame of reference for the operator.

Anterior Exposure of the Puborectalis Muscle

The striated skeletal muscle of the pelvic oor is a conical extension of the anal canal. Through the taTME vantage point, depending on prostate size, this skeletal muscle should not be visible to within approximately ±20° from the 0° anterior midline. Exposure of this muscle at this level typically implies mobilization of the prostate gland and should warrant immediate reassess­ment of the plane of dissection (Fig.31.2).
Fig. 31.4 Video still frames of iatrogenic uretrhal injury during taTME in males

Denonvilliers’ Fascia

Denonvilliers’ fascia is unique to males. This dual-layered envelope establishes the plane between the anterior rectal wall and the posterior aspect of the prostate gland (Fig.31.5). Extending from its point of insertion at the urogenital dia­phragm to the peritoneal reection, this fascia helps separate the two structures. With the taTME approach and with perineal insufation, the ante­rior plane often is established easily, resolving what is otherwise one of the greatest challenges of conventional radical rectal resection, namely, the anterior dissection along the horizontal por­tion of the rectum. However, this fascial plane and the associated neurovascular bundles of Walsh which ank Denonvilliers’ fascia can be