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
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Future of TAMIS
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •1: Historical Perspectives and Rationale for Development
- •Introduction
- •From Miles Resection to Parks Excision
- •Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM)
- •Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS)
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Contraindications
- •Controversial Areas
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •3: An Algorithm for Local Excision for Early-Stage Rectal Cancer
- •Background
- •Techniques for Local Excision
- •Traditional Indications for Local Excision
- •Risk Factors for Failure of Local Excision of Early Rectal Cancer
- •Results of Local Excision of T1 Rectal Cancer
- •Local Excision of T2 Rectal Cancer
- •NCCN and National Guidelines
- •Patient-Related Factors
- •Technical and Surgeon-Related Factors
- •Salvage of Recurrence After Local Excision
- •An Algorithm
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Intervals After nCRT
- •Radiological Assessment
- •Transanal Full-Thickness Local Excisions (FTLEs)
- •Outcomes
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Summary
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Treatment Options
- •Local Excision
- •Neoadjuvant Therapy Followed by Local Excision
- •Palliative Radiotherapy
- •Radical Surgery
- •Conclusion: Tailoring Palliative Treatment
- •References
- •Introduction
- •History
- •History of Transanal Access Excluding Endoscopy
- •Flexible Sigmoidoscopy
- •Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery
- •SILS, TAMIS, and the Glove Port
- •Transanal Access Platforms
- •Transanal Retractors
- •Operating Sigmoidoscopes
- •Lone Star Retractor
- •TAMIS
- •GelPOINT Path Transanal Access Platform
- •SILS
- •OCTO Port
- •Robotic-Assisted TAMIS
- •Transanal Instrumentation
- •Ordinary Laparoscopic Instruments
- •Suturing Devices
- •Diathermy
- •Energy Devices
- •The Gas Laws
- •Compliance
- •ISB and EPIX
- •Summary
- •References
- •8: Operating Theater Setup and Perioperative Considerations
- •Introduction
- •Equipment
- •Essential Equipment
- •Recommended
- •Operating Theater Setup
- •Perioperative Considerations
- •Patient Selection
- •TAMIS
- •Other Considerations
- •Postoperative Care
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Patient Selection
- •Operative Technique
- •Patients’ Eligibility for ELRR (Pyramidal Local Excision)
- •Basic Exclusion Criteria
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •10: Pyramidal Excision for Early Rectal Cancer and Special Closure Techniques
- •Nomenclature: Excision versus Resection
- •Rationale of Pyramidal Excision
- •Patient Selection
- •Index Staging (Pre-NT)
- •Neoadjuvant Therapy (NT)
- •Anesthesia
- •Pyramidal Excision or ELRR
- •Surgical Dissection
- •Posterior Lesions (Patient Supine)
- •Anteriol Lesions (Patient Prone)
- •Female
- •Male
- •Peritoneal Entry
- •Intraoperative Histological Assessment of the Cranial and Caudal Margins
- •Nucleotide-Guided Mesorectal Excision (NGME)
- •Suture Closure of the Defect
- •Important Tips
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •11: Closure Versus Non-closure After Local Excision
- •Introduction
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Intraoperative Complications
- •Peritoneal Entry
- •Intraoperative Hemorrhage
- •Short-Term Complications
- •Postoperative Hemorrhage
- •Subcutaneous Emphysema
- •Postoperative Pain
- •Fecal Incontinence
- •Long-Term Complications
- •Rectal Stricture
- •Rectovaginal Fistula
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Anorectal Function
- •Measuring Anorectal Function
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Physical Exam
- •Intraoperative Factors
- •Transanal Excision (TAE)
- •Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM)
- •Fecal Incontinence Scores
- •Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS)
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Recurrence After Local Excision
- •Summary
- •References
- •15: Applications Beyond Local Excision
- •Introduction
- •The TAMIS-Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis (TaIPAA)
- •Pelvic Exenteration
- •Proctectomy
- •Rectal Prolapse
- •Parastomal Hernia
- •Retrorectal Masses
- •Robotic TAMIS
- •Managing Complications
- •Foreign Body Retrieval
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Initial Dry Laboratory Experiments
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Flex® Robotic System
- •Future Directions: da Vinci SP Surgical System
- •Future Directions: Pure NOTES Colorectal Surgery
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Oncologic Outcomes After Peritoneal Entry During TAMIS
- •Fecal Incontinence
- •Economics
- •Unusual Applications
- •References
- •19: Indications for Malignant Neoplasia of the Rectum
- •Operative Approach for TME
- •Abdominal TME
- •Transanal TME
- •Patient Selection
- •Tumor-Related Factors
- •Local Stage
- •Tumor Height
- •Patient-Related Factors
- •Obesity
- •Narrow Pelvis
- •Procedure-Related Factors
- •Following Local Excision with Transanal Endoscopic Surgery (TES)
- •Low/Ultra-Low Anterior Resection
- •Intersphincteric Dissection
- •Abdominoperineal Resection
- •Patient Counselling
- •Surgeon Training and Experience
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Technique
- •Preliminary Results
- •Surgical Approach
- •Results
- •Heading
- •Surgical Technique
- •Surgical Technique
- •Preliminary Results
- •Miscellaneous Procedures
- •Final Remarks
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Operating Theater Setup
- •Two-Team Coordination: Low Anterior Resection
- •Transanal Team: Transanal Proctectomy
- •Abdominal Team: Upper Rectal Mobilization
- •References
- •22: Single-Team taTME
- •Introduction
- •Considerations
- •Institution
- •Advocating for a Single-Team taTME Program
- •Securing Sustainable Funding
- •Patient Consent
- •Potential Complications
- •Training
- •Required Personnel
- •Surgeon
- •Specialized Assistant
- •Dedicated Nursing Team
- •Equipment
- •Equipment Setup for a Single Team
- •The Procedure
- •Where to Start
- •Transabdominal Approach
- •Transanal Approach
- •When to Transition to the Bottom
- •Roles and Assignments of the Dedicated Nurse and Surgical Assistant
- •Rendezvous: Meeting of the Planes
- •Top-to-Bottom Transfers
- •Extracting the Specimen and Creating the Anastomosis
- •Auditing Your Results
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Platform Options
- •Transanal Flexible Platforms (TAMIS Based)
- •Rigid Platforms
- •Semirigid Platforms (TEM/TAMIS Hybrid)
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •25: Key Aspects of the Abdominal Dissection
- •Introduction
- •Positioning of taTME in Abdominal Maneuvers
- •Key Aspects for Performing TME from the Abdominal Side
- •Understanding the Perirectal Fascia Structure
- •Caution During the Dissection in the Neurovascular Bundle (NVB)
- •Key Aspects for Adequate Blood Flow Preservation in the Colon
- •Caution for the Abdominal Dissection Team in the Dual-Team taTME
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •The Setup
- •Purse-String Principles
- •Common Pitfalls
- •Special Considerations
- •The Distal Purse-String
- •Preoperative Preparation
- •One Versus Two Teams
- •Abdominal Approach
- •Transanal Approach
- •Restorative Total Mesorectal Excision
- •Abdominoperineal Excision
- •Partial Mesorectal Excision
- •Critical Anatomic Landmarks
- •Specimen Extraction
- •Anastomosis
- •References
- •28: Strategies for Ultralow-Lying Rectal Cancer
- •Introduction
- •The Development of ISR for Rectal Cancer and a Farewell to the 2 cm Rule
- •Standard Educational Programs for taTME
- •General Technical Principles
- •taTME for Rullier Type I Tumors
- •taTME for Rullier Type II and III Tumors
- •Functional Outcomes
- •Oncologic Outcomes
- •Future Directions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Conclusion
- •Suggested Reading
- •30: Urethral Injury: The New Challenge for taTME
- •Introduction
- •Incidence of Urethral Injury
- •Understanding the Anatomic Landmarks
- •Recognizing Patients at Risk
- •Intraoperative Prevention Strategies
- •Emerging Technologies
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •31: How to Avoid Urethral Injury in Males
- •Introduction
- •Assessment of Patient Risk for Injury
- •The Rectourethralis Muscle and the Pre-rectal Muscle Fibers of Luschka
- •Morphology of the Prostate Gland and Urethra
- •Anterior Exposure of the Puborectalis Muscle
- •Denonvilliers’ Fascia
- •The Neurovascular Bundle of Walsh
- •Surgeon Misperception and Visual Completion
- •Other Human Factors
- •Methods to Localize the Urethra
- •Urethral Injury Management
- •Related Injuries to the Urinary System
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Transanal Nerve-Sparing Mesorectal Dissection
- •Internal Anal Sphincter Nerves
- •Inferior Rectal Plexus
- •Neurovascular Bundles
- •Pelvic Splanchnic Nerves
- •Inferior Hypogastric Plexus
- •Hypogastric Nerve
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Operative Vectors
- •Gas Flow Mechanics
- •Cyclic Billowing
- •Anatomic Distortion
- •False Planes
- •References
- •Introduction
- •History
- •Nomenclature
- •Anatomy
- •Obtain Unimpeded Mesenteric Access
- •The Splenic Flexure
- •Future Directions
- •References
- •35: The Role for Perfusion Angiography
- •Fluorescence-Guided Surgery
- •Fluorophore Characteristics
- •Indocyanine Green (ICG)
- •Current Status of Perfusion Angiography in Colorectal Surgery
- •Clinical Outcomes in Colorectal Surgery
- •Changes in Management Decisions
- •Decision on the Use of Diverting Ileostomy
- •Ileo-Anal Pouch Assessment
- •Limitations
- •Current State of Data on PA to Reduce Anastomotic Leaks
- •Multifactorial Aetiology of AL
- •Targeted Fluorophores
- •Conclusions and Future Directions
- •References
- •36: Perioperative Preparation and Postoperative Care Considerations
- •Preoperative Assessment
- •History and Physical Examination
- •Preoperative Testing
- •Preoperative Stoma Marking
- •Sphincter Evaluation
- •Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)
- •Preoperative
- •Intraoperative
- •Postoperative
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Full-Thickness Rectotomy
- •The Anastomosis
- •Other Complications
- •References
- •38: Functional Outcomes to Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) and Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME)
- •Anorectal Function and Assessment
- •Functional Outcomes: TAMIS
- •Functional Outcomes: taTME
- •References
- •39: Oncologic Outcomes
- •Grading of TME Specimen
- •Circumferential Resection Margin
- •Distal Resection Margin
- •Local Recurrence
- •Distant Metastasis
- •References
- •40: TaTME for Radical Exenteration
- •Introduction
- •Patient Indications
- •Anatomical Planning
- •Operative Approach
- •Platforms
- •Sphincter Preservation or En Bloc Perineal Resection
- •The Prostate, Seminal Vesicles, and Bladder
- •Female Patients and taTPE
- •Postoperative Considerations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Anatomical Considerations
- •Operative Procedure
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Operative Setup
- •Technique Description (Table 42.1)
- •taHR: Abdominal Aspects
- •taHR: Transanal Aspects
- •Results
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •43: Pure NOTES Transanal TME
- •Introduction
- •Rationale
- •Patient Selection
- •Surgical Technique
- •Armamentarium
- •Setup
- •Dissection
- •Step 1: Closing the Distal Stump of the Rectum Placing a Purse-String Suture
- •Step 2: Posterior Rectal Space Opening
- •Step 3: Cranial and Lateral Progression of the Dissection
- •Step 4: Extending the Perirectal Dissection Anteriorly
- •Step 6: Proceeding with the Dissection Toward the Root of the Mesorectum and the Retroperitoneal Abdominal Space
- •Step 7: Reaching the Root of the Inferior Mesenteric Vessels
- •Step 8: Dividing the Inferior Mesenteric Vessels and the Sigmoid Mesentery
- •Step 9: Construction of Low Colorectal or Coloanal Anastomosis
- •Postoperative Care
- •Discussion
- •Why Pure taTME?
- •Why TEO® Platform?
- •Why a Retroperitoneal Approach?
- •Is Mobilization of Splenic Flexure Necessary?
- •Teaching and Training
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision
- •Robotic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (Robotic taTME)
- •Surgical Technique
- •Clinical Outcomes
- •Future: New Robotics Platforms
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Flex® Robotic System
- •SPORT™ Surgical System
- •Da Vinci SP® Surgical System
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Mobile Apps
- •Video-in-Picture
- •Deferred Live Surgery
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Application
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •48: Current Controversies and Challenges in Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME)
- •Introduction
- •Comparison Between Open and Laparoscopic Approach
- •Comparison Between Laparoscopic and Robotic Approach
- •Comparison Between Laparoscopic and taTME Approach
- •Challenges
- •References
- •49: Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: The Next 10 Years
- •What’s Best When and by Whom?
- •Educational Advances
- •Platform Advances
- •Instrumentation Advances
- •Visualization Advances
- •TaTME: A Killer Robot Application or Robot Killer?
- •Image-Guided Surgery

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 identied and dissected, after which the urethral injury is
primarily repaired with sutures
In the series of 34 urethral injuries collected
by Sylla etal., 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 etal., manuscript submitted for
publication) [15]. Many surgeons noted continuing the dissection in the posterior and lateral
planes in the face of a difcult 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 etal., 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-specic 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 etal., 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
identication 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 conrm 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 etal., 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 identication 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 difculties 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 difcult 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 difcult 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
identied with the use of a special infrared laparoscopic camera lter and allow for transillumination through up to 12mm 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
identied [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 identication 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 identication 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 etal. 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, etal. 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 difcult
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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. Transanal natural orice 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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-specic,
gender- specic 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 etal. 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 specic to males. There were 30
male patients in this series by Burke etal., 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 difcult 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 etal. 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
reect 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 signicantly 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 1in 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 [6–9], and this can be attributed to the constant tactile feedback surgeons utilize during
TATA to conrm 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 ≤3cm 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, invivo 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 Table31.1, urethral injury
risk stratication 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 inammatory disease of the anus, rectum, or prostate, and (f)
tumor-specic 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 signicant 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 articial 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)
Difcult 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 ≤3cm from anal verge
Anterior, distal rectal cancer ≤3cm 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 conrm 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 specically 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 [14–18]. 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
dened. 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 difcult 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, specically 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 reection, this fascia
helps separate the two structures. With the taTME
approach and with perineal insufation, 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
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
