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

410
S. K. Perdawood
44. 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.
45. Fernandez-Hevia M, Delgado S, Castells A, Tasende
M, Momblan D, Diaz del Gobbo G, DeLacy B, Balust
J, Lacy AM.Transanal total mesorectal excision in
rectal cancer: short-term outcomes in comparison with
laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;261:221–7.
46. Perdawood SK, Al Khefagie GA.Transanal vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial experience from Denmark. Color Dis.
2016;18:51–8.
47. Kang L, Chen WH, Luo SL, Luo YX, Liu ZH, Huang
MJ, Wang JP. Transanal total mesorectal excision
for rectal cancer: a preliminary report. Surg Endosc.
2016;30:2552–62.
48. Caycedo-Marulanda A, Jiang HY, Kohtakangas
EL. Outcomes of a single surgeon-based TransanalTotal Mesorectal Excision (TATME) for rectal cancer.
J Gastrointest Cancer. 2017;49(4):455–62.
49. 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;32:2312–21.
50. Ma B, Gao P, Song Y, Zhang C, Zhang C, Wang L,
Liu H, Wang Z. Transanal total mesorectal excision
(taTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and
meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal
excision. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:380.
51. Simillis C, Hompes R, Penna M, Rasheed S, Tekkis
PP.A systematic review of transanal total mesorectal
excision: is this the future of rectal cancer surgery?
Color Dis. 2016;18:19–36.
52. Bjorn MX, Perdawood SK. Transanal total mesorectal excision–a systematic review. Dan Med J.
2015;62:pii: A5105.
53. Xu W, Xu Z, Cheng H, Ying J, Cheng F, Xu W, Cao
J, Luo J.Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes
between transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal
excision for the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer:
a meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1841–50.
54. de Lacy FB, van Laarhoven J, 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.
2017;32(5):2442–7.
55. Persiani R, Biondi A, Pennestri F, Fico V, De Simone
V, Tirelli F, Santullo F, D’Ugo D. Transanal total
mesorectal excision vs laparoscopic total mesorectal
excision in the treatment of low and middle rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Dis Colon
Rectum. 2018;61(7):809–16.
56. Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der
Pas MH, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Lacy AM, Bemelman
WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A,
Haglind E, COLOR II Study Group. A randomized
trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal
cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1324–32.
57. 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. Langenbeck's Arch Surg.
2015;400:945–59.
58. Perdawood SK.A case of local recurrence following
transanal total mesorectal excision: a new form of portsite metastasis? Tech Coloproctol. 2018;22(4):319–20.
59. Mege D, Hain E, Lakkis Z, Maggiori L, Prost
ALDJ, Panis Y. Trans-anal total mesorectal excision: is it really safe and better than laparoscopic
total mesorectal excision with perineal approach rst
in patients with low rectal cancer? A learning curve
with case-matched study in 68 patients. Color Dis.
2018;20(6):O143–51.

TaTME for Radical Exenteration
Sami A. Chadi and Dana Sands
40
Introduction
The transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME)
was pioneered with the objective of optimizing
the oncologic outcomes of the distal rectal dissection. Surgeons have noted an improved visualization and dissection of the TME plane with hopes
of improving the oncologic outcomes given the
ease of access via a perineal approach. The “headon” view of the bottom-up approach, pioneered
by Sylla and Lacy [1], has been reported to be
associated with excellent R0 resection rates and
low incidences of CRM positivity. However, in
some situations, despite the best efforts of the
multidisciplinary team to downsize the tumor
with neoadjuvant adjuncts to improve both the
amenability to resection and the likelihood of a
negative CRM, the malignancy involves adjacent
structures that, if resected, can still afford the
patient a disease-free state post- resection.
Excellent results– with a high rate of R0 resections– have been observed in high- volume specialty centers, when coordinated between the
appropriate specialties [2]. These exenterative
S. A. Chadi (*)
University Health Network and Princess Margaret
Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
e-mail: sami.chadi@uhn.ca
D. Sands
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic
Florida, Weston, FL, USA
e-mail: sandsd@ccf.org
techniques rely on the individual surgical teams
having a strong familiarity of embryologic planes,
the vascular anatomy of the pelvis and supply of
other pelvic organs, the distribution of the nerves
in the sidewall and sacral foramina, and, nally,
the need at the time for reconstructive techniques
based on the structures resected and local factors,
such as prior radiation exposure.
Few cases of exenterative techniques in
taTME have been reported in the literature, often
referred to as transanal total pelvic exenteration
(taTPE). Moreover, they tend to mostly be performed at a few specialty and high-volume institutions only [3, 4]. The rational for taTPE may
be, in part, related to the remarkable ease of
mobilizing the prostate gland and the urethra
noted during taTME.Ironically, the Achilles’ heel
of taTME (i.e., inadvertent urethral injury) has
likely been a contributing factor in why the taTPE
approach has been pioneered, as the urethra is
now intentionally divided as part of the planned
operation. Thus, the vantage point of taTPE
together with the known, high-quality excisions
achieved with taTME in expert hands has
intrigued surgeons to explore this technique as a
valid approach to curative-intent resection.
It should be highlighted that a “total” exenteration is not necessarily always the objective;
selective anterior or posterior exenterations are
also possible, based on the oncologic requirements of the resection. The main individual cases
that have been presented have included those in
© 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_40
411

412
S. A. Chadi and D. Sands
patients without systemic disease or those with a
burden of metastatic disease that would otherwise preclude an attempt at curative resection.
Furthermore, patients who have undergone taTPE
have had underlying tumor extension into the
prostate gland, the posterior vaginal wall, and/or
the presacral and lateral sidewall fascia.
Involvement of the levator ani muscles or the
external sphincters is also amenable to a dissection under pneumopelvis (taAPR) via an extralevator approach; this will be discussed in a
separate chapter.
Given the early experiences with taTPE, we
will discuss the various principles of treatment as
well as the operative approaches that have proven
to be crucial in planning a radical exenteration
under pneumopelvis, focusing on the technical
aspects of the procedure. The oncologic principles of exenterative procedures will be discussed
briey, as they pertain to the technicalities of a
taTPE.
Patient Indications
8]; however, receiving neoadjuvant therapy has
been consistently associated with a more comorbid postoperative course.
Oncologically, surgeons must be condent in
the likelihood of being able to achieve a marginnegative (R0) resection, prior to embarking on
such an endeavor. As such, it is crucial to involve
colleagues from all appropriate subspecialties–
which may include urology, gynecology, orthopedics, as well as plastic surgery for reconstruction
when necessary in the planning phases. Having
the patient assessed by each subspecialty surgeon is imperative to ensure specialty-specic
assessments of resectability and discussions of
the consent and perioperative/postoperative
expectations. Furthermore, a multidisciplinary
cancer conference (MCC) discussion can allow
for further optimization of the approach and
assessment of resectability, as well as determining appropriate adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant
protocols.
Anatomical Planning
Indications of treatment can be categorized in
baseline performance characteristics as well as
the oncologic resectability of the primary tumor.
It is crucial to ensure the patient is well informed
of both the physical demands imposed by exenteration and the extended recovery and changes
in quality of life – even in instances whereby
reconstruction via low colorectal/coloanal anastomosis is possible [5]. Patients have been shown
to perform best when they demonstrate high levels of baseline quality of life metrics and should
be advised that improvements in quality of life
can take between 2 and 12months to manifest [5,
6]. Minimally invasive approaches to an exenter-
ation may facilitate both the recovery process and
the resumption of an active lifestyle but can only
be performed in select cases [7]; however, the
extent of the resection remains a signicant
source of morbidity, and the procedure is only
possible in highly selective patients. The majority, if not all patients, will have been treated with
neoadjuvant therapy to both decrease the burden
and improve the likelihood of an R0 resection [2,
Prior to embarking on the procedure, it is important for surgeons to plan all aspects with subspecialty collaborators. This is even more important
with a taTPE where many other subspecialists
may not be aware of the details and requirements
of the technique. Sequencing the procedure
through a rehearsal process is crucial to address
all potential impediments of surgery from patient
positioning, repositioning when necessary, intraoperative difculties in dissection, and staging
specialty-specic involvement in the procedure as
well as staging reconstruction (gastrointestinal,
urologic, or plastic myogenous/myocutaneous).
Imaging is crucial in these procedures. CT
imaging can be helpful in demonstrating systemic disease as well as local tumor extent. The
details of the locoregional extent of disease can
be optimized with MRI. This can help clarify
details including fascial involvement, extent of
other pelvic organ involvement, and adherence to
or invasion of pelvic vasculature. Furthermore,
MRI has been shown to improve assessments of
both tumor viability and regression following the

40 TaTME for Radical Exenteration
413
administration of neoadjuvant therapy [9]. The
extent of involvement of the external sphincter or
levator musculature can be further optimized
with transanal ultrasound which has a higher sensitivity (compared to MRI) for delineating early
T-staging [10]; this may further inform the surgical team regarding the potential for sphincter
preservation.
The details of the extent of the oncologic
resection will depend on the preoperative imaging which is best repeated following the completion of neoadjuvant therapy and at the appropriate
time interval. This will vary by institution and by
the modality of neoadjuvant therapy that was
administered. The extent of the resection should
be dictated by the consensus decision of the MCC
discussion. The ability to salvage other pelvic
organ structures will depend on the inter- specialty
assessments. Sphincter preservation is not usually possible when there is a resection of the pelvic oor musculature such as in cases of invasion
or sacrectomy. Considerations of sphincter preservation can be stratied into functional and
oncologic factions. Functional factors are considered on an individualized basis and are based on
the patient’s preference, depending on preoperative continence as well as postoperative expectations of gastrointestinal function. Pertinent
oncologic factors include distance of the tumor
from the anorectal junction (ARJ) and, in cases
of partial or total intersphincteric resections, the
clearance of the intersphincteric plane or lack of
involvement of the external sphincter.
Operative Approach
The feasibility of a transanal approach to the
resection has been reported in male patients with
en bloc prostate and seminal vesicle resections
[3, 4, 11] as well as anecdotal experiences with
resections of the posterior wall of the vagina.
Hayashi and colleagues discuss performing a lateral pelvic node dissection as part of a laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration with taTPE
technique for perineal completion and extraction;
during this technique, the authors performed the
pelvic sidewall dissection during the abdominal
phase; and it should be noted that the prostatectomy was completed from the abdominal phase
of the operation as well [11].
Platforms
The main platforms to consider for taTPE are the
disposable transanal platforms (Gelpoint Mini® and
Gelpoint Path®, Applied Medical, Rancho Santa
Margarita, CA, USA; SILS Transanal port,
Medtronic®, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Keyport
Flex®, Richard-Wolf, Knittlingen, Germany) and
the xed or rigid platforms (Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery, Richard-Wolf, Knittlingen,
Germany; TEO®, Karl Storz Endoskope, Tuttlingen,
Germany). Each port has advantages afforded to the
surgeon and procedure. Most surgeons will use the
port they are comfortable with during standard
taTME and transanal endoscopic procedures.
Sphincter Preservation or En Bloc Perineal Resection
One of the rst decisions that needs to be made is
to determine whether or not sphincter preservation is feasible. If the patient’s sphincter can be
preserved, then the dissection can be initiated
through a standard approach used in taTME.The
details of initiating this dissection will be discussed elsewhere and will depend on the distal
extent of the tumor. The modied Rullier criteria,
proposed by Knol and Chadi, can provide a pictorial frame of reference to this assessment [12].
Briey, if the tumor is present more than 2cm
from the ARJ, the transanal dissection can be initiated under pneumopelvis with the TAMIS port’s
access channel seated in place. If it is less than
2cm from the ARJ, the dissection is often initiated with a non-endoscopically placed purse
string, usually after anal effacement with the
Lonestar
intersphincteric proctectomy is planned, the dissection is often initiated in the appropriate plane
prior to, or after, which the purse string is formed.
The dissection is then transitioned from a traditional transanal approach (often described as the
®
device, or similar. If a total or partial

414
S. A. Chadi and D. Sands
transanal transabdominal or TATA) to one under
pneumopelvis when the TAMIS port apparatus
has been docked. This approach is generally
more straightforward to perform (especially for
surgeons have not performed a taAPR) given the
relatively more traditional perirectal anatomy of
a taTME.
If sphincter preservation is not possible, surgeons should have had some experience with
taAPR as the planes of dissection can be quite
different and require a detailed knowledge of the
pelvic oor musculature to navigate proximally.
This will be covered here briey and in more
detail in a separate, dedicated chapter.
The decision of an intralevator or extralevator
dissection needs to be made. The extralevator
dissection tends to be more amenable to a taAPR
approach as the fascial planes of the pelvic oor
musculature tend to be more straightforward to
follow. The landmark of the coccyx and the gluteus maximus muscle are identied. The coccygeus and internal obturator muscles are identied
at the ischial spine. The levator ani muscles are
dissected off the attachments of the coccygeus
and internal obturator muscles. This provides
access to the supralevator space, allowing for a
continuation of the dissection along the internal
obturator muscle. This procedure is performed on
each lateral aspect of the dissection. The internal
pudendal artery is also identied and ligated during the dissection. Anteriorly, the perineal body is
identied and dropped posteriorly along the
transversus perinei muscle. In male patients, this
guides the surgeon during this anterior dissection
to the level of the membranous urethra at the
insertion of the prostate. At this level and under
direct observation and control, the urethra can be
transected with the distal aspect remaining
exposed for considerations of reconstruction in
the case of prostatectomy. The details of a female
dissection will be covered below.
The Prostate, Seminal Vesicles, and Bladder
Distal rectal tumors may extend into the prostatic
capsule or into the parenchyma of the prostate
gland. Options for partial prostatectomy do exist
although this can be difcult to perform, given
difculties understanding and predicting the
extent of invasion into the prostate during the
intraoperative dissection. Tumors abutting the
prostatic fascia can often be approached with an
intraparenchymal dissection. This is often more
straightforward to perform transabdominally
after entering into the plane anterior to the rectoprostatic fascia (Denonvilliers’ fascia) allowing
for a preservation of the seminal vesicles and the
urethra.
When deciding to perform a total prostatectomy as part of the procedure, it is prudent to
consult with a urologist in the surgical decisionmaking process, especially for the purpose of
operative planning. The resection will often
require removal of the seminal vesicles that is
often approached transabdominally and communicated with the transanal dissection. During this
process, the vas deferens is identied lateral to
the seminal vesicles. The seminal vesicles are
identied when the peritoneal reection anterior
to the rectum is incised. This is often performed
10–20 mm anterior to the true reection.
Following the alveolar plane laterally will take
the surgical dissection anterior to the seminal
vesicles so as to ensure they are included en bloc
with the surgical specimen. When the vas deferens is identied, it can often be transected with an
energy device. The dissection can then be followed anterior to the seminal vesicles distally to
communicate with the transanal dissection. Care
must be taken to allow the transanal team to perform the prostatic mobilization.
An additional decision integral to operative
planning for taTPE is to determine whether or not
the bladder must be excised. Fundamental to this is
the assessed involvement of the trigone of the bladder for tumor extension, which mandates en bloc
cystectomy. The prostatic dissection can be
approached with a combination of a transabdominal and transperineal approach. Transabdominally,
after the ureters are identied and isolated as close
as possible to the bladder, they are transected with
preservation of the peri- ureteric fat for the purposes
of maintaining vascularity. The peritoneum is
incised lateral to the median umbilical ligaments,

40 TaTME for Radical Exenteration
415
and the space of Retzius is entered with maturation
of the plane. Transection of the urachus and median
umbilical ligaments should be performed with caution to avoid injury to the inferior epigastric vessels, especially in cases where a vertical rectus
abdominus myocutaneous ap will be used for
perineal reconstruction.
The plane in the space of Retzius is developed
until the endopelvic fascia is reached and opened.
The vas deferens is often divided at this level to
expose the lateral sidewall and the external iliac
vessels and to allow for ligation of the superior and
inferior vesicle arteries as well as the vesicoprostatic artery. The supercial dorsal venous complex
is exposed and ligated with an energy device when
adequate proximal and distal control has been
obtained. This later aspect of the procedure can
often be performed during the transanal portion of
the procedure as well as discussed below.
During the perineal component of taTPE, if
sphincter preservation is planned, the surgeon
begins with a full-thickness rectotomy at the
desired distal margin. The dissection is followed
along the presacral plane posteriorly after which,
the dissection is advanced further laterally and
external to the TME plane to include the visceral
pelvic fascia en bloc with the dissection. This will
guide the surgical team external to the traditional
TME plane when extending the dissection laterally.
The prostate is kept pedicled anteriorly to the urethra. The surgical team can follow the extraperitoneal dissection, lateral to the visceral pelvic fascia.
This is usually the wrong plane of dissection during
a traditional taTME as it takes the surgeon in the
extra-TME plane and eventually into the space of
Retzius and anterior to the prostate. While entering
into this plane when performing an en bloc prostatectomy, care should be taken to avoid the various
nerve bundles in the pelvic sidewall which are susceptible to injury. Additionally, when preserving
the bladder, limiting the more proximal dissection
of the space of Retzius will allow for the bladder to
remain adherent anteriorly. As this dissection is
continued anteriorly, the membranous (pre-prostatic) urethra is identied. The urethra is next transected along with the urinary catheter; alternatively,
the catheter can be left in place for orientation pur-
poses as the remainder of the dissection is continued posterior to the posterior wall of the bladder
and into the peritoneal cavity. Care must be taken
to identify the dorsal venous complex, which lies
anterior and more proximal to the prostate. Once
identied the dorsal vein can be divided with a
vessel-sealing device, in conjunction with the rest
of the urinary sphincter. If unsure of this plane
transanally, it may be safer to perform it during the
more familiar transabdominal approach. The urethra can then be reconstructed through a bladder
advancement to the distal site of transection
through the transanal access platform. The bladderurethra anastomosis is constructed over a urinary
catheter (which serves as a stent) and is fashioned
with interrupted absorbable sutures. When complete, coloanal reconstruction and anastomosis
with an end-to-end, side-to-end, or colonic-jpouch-conguration utilizing either a stapled or
hand- sewn approach is then fashioned.
When a cystoprostatectomy is planned, the
lateral dissection discussed in the above section
is continued into the space of Retzius and anterior to the prostate and, more proximally, to the
bladder. The dissection laterally in the space of
Retzius can be continued more proximally such
that it facilitates entry into the space anterior to
the bladder, thereby dropping it posteriorly for en
bloc exenteration. This dissection will have often
been performed synchronously with transabdominal dissection during which the two approaches
will be communicated at the point of rendezvous.
Ileal conduit reconstruction with ureteric reimplantation is then performed during from the
abdominal approach.
When anal sphincter preservation is not
planned, the approach to the prostate and bladder
remains similar– other than the anterior approach
to the urethra. As the perineal body is dropped
posterior to the transversus perinei muscle, the
dissection is brought proximally to the level of
the urethra. The remaining steps of the oncologic
resection are performed as described above.
Perineal reconstruction with biologic mesh or
myogenous/myocutaneous ap advancement can
be performed when necessary, often in conjunction with plastic/reconstructive surgical team.

416
S. A. Chadi and D. Sands
Female Patients and taTPE
As of yet, there are no publications or video
reports of an anterior exenteration in a female
patient via the taTPE.The approach has been discussed and theorized among authors. Many anterior exenterations in female patients mandate en
bloc posterior vaginectomy. Theoretically, the
main technical impediment with the taTPE
approach is the difculty in maintaining pneumopelvis when the posterior vaginal wall has been
excised, because the transanal TAMIS port cannot
close the entire perineal defect. As such, the perineal approach, with or without sphincter preservation, can be potentially performed posteriorly
and laterally, leaving the tumor and specimen
pedicled on the anterior attachments to the posterior wall of the vagina. Additionally, care should
be taken to ensure preservation of the autonomic
nerves that coarse along the lateral vagina, if
oncologically permissible. Once the perineal dissection is communicated posteriorly and laterally
to the abdominal dissection, the abdominal team
can also continue the abdominal dissection to the
level of the cephalad limit of the intended vaginectomy. The vaginectomy can then be performed
transvaginally and transperineally into the vaginal
vault and circumferentially around the area of the
vagina involved. If the anus is preserved, the posterior wall of the vagina can be closed with or
without added reconstruction. If the anus is not
preserved, a myocutaneous ap can often be performed to reconstruct the posterior wall of the
vagina and the perineum. If an en bloc hysterectomy is intended, a standard approach to hysterectomy can be performed with the anterior dissection
continued along and through Morrison’s pouch to
communicate with the vaginal vault. Care must be
taken to avoid injury to the bladder and urethra
anteriorly during this dissection.
Postoperative Considerations
The postoperative course of patients does not differ from patients managed with a standard exenteration. Publications have reported rapid recovery,
when a minimally invasive approach to this radical operation is utilized [7, 11]. Urethral catheters
should be managed by the urologic team as
should the ureteric stents in cases of ileal urinary
conduit creation. Additionally, standard anastomotic assessments should be performed prior to
reversing diverting stomas for coloanal anastomoses, assuming an anastomosis has been
constructed.
References
1. Sylla P, Bordeianou LG, Berger D, Han KS, Lauwers
GY, Sahani DV, et al. A pilot study of natural orice transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision
with laparoscopic assistance for rectal cancer. Surg
Endosc. 2013;27(9):3396–405.
2. PelvEx Collaborative. Surgical and Survival Outcomes
Following Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Advanced
Primary Rectal Cancer: Results From an International
Collaboration. Ann Surg. 2019;269(2):315–21.
3. Uematsu D, Akiyama G, Sugihara T, Magishi A,
Yamaguchi T, Sano T.Transanal total pelvic exenteration. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(6):647–8.
4. Uematsu D, Akiyama G, Sugihara T, Magishi A, Ono
K, Yamaguchi T, et al. Transanal total pelvic exenteration with sphincter-preserving surgery. Dis Colon
Rectum. 2018;61(5):641.
5. Rausa E, Kelly ME, Bonavina L, O'Connell PR,
Winter DC. A systematic review examining quality of life following pelvic exenteration for locally
advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Color Dis.
2017;19(5):430–6.
6. Quyn AJ, Austin KKS, Young JM, Badgery-Parker
T, Masya LM, Roberts R, etal. Outcomes of pelvic
exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer: overall survival and quality of life. Eur J Surg
Oncol. 2016;42(6):823–8.
7. PelvEx Collaborative. Minimally invasive sur-
gery techniques in pelvic exenteration: a systematic and meta-analysis review. Surg Endosc.
2018;34(2):2177.
8. Vermaas M, Ferenschild FTJ, Verhoef C, Nuyttens
JJME, Marinelli AWKS, Wiggers T, etal. Total pelvic exenteration for primary locally advanced and
locally recurrent rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol.
2007;33(4):452–8.
9. Battersby NJ, How P, Moran B, Stelzner S, West NP,
Branagan G, et al. Prospective Validation of a Low
Rectal Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging Staging
System and Development of a Local Recurrence Risk
Stratication Model: The MERCURY II Study. Ann
Surg. 2016;263(4):751–60.
10. Zhao R-S, Wang H, Zhou Z-Y, Zhou Q, Mulholland
MW. Restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer

40 TaTME for Radical Exenteration
417
with magnetic resonance imaging and endoluminal
ultrasound after preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Dis
Colon Rectum. 2014;57(3):388–95.
11. Hayashi K, Kotake M, Kakiuchi D, Yamada S, Hada
M, Kato Y, etal. Laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration using transanal minimal invasive surgery
technique with en bloc bilateral lymph node dis-
section for advanced rectal cancer. Surg Case Rep.
2016;2:1–4.
12. Knol J, Chadi SA. Transanal total mesorectal excision: technical aspects of approaching the mesorectal plane from below. Minim Invasive Ther Allied
Technol. 2016 Oct;25(5):257–70.

TaTME forAbdominoperineal
Excision
SuguruHasegawa, TomoakiOkada, DaiboKojima,
AkiraKomono, RyoheiSakamoto, NaoyaAisu,
YoichiroYoshida, andYoshiharuSakai
41
Introduction
Abdominoperineal excision (APE) is an important operative procedure for patients with lowlying rectal cancer who are not eligible for
sphincter-preserving surgery. APE is performed
as a combination of abdominal and perineal
stages; the perineal stage is usually performed
under direct vision. APE has been reported to be
associated with poor outcomes, such as higher
local recurrence rates or poor overall survival,
probably due to the higher rate of positive circumferential margins, especially at the anterior
aspect [1, 2]. A wide skin incision in the lithotomy or prone position has been utilized to
improve surgical exposure [3], especially on the
anterior aspect, even when the skin is spared
from tumor invasion. Although recent reports
have described division of the levator ani muscle
and the ischioanal fossa even from a laparoscopic
approach [4], exposure of the anterior aspect is
still difcult even with this procedure.
The recent development of the endoscopic bot-
tom-to-top approach in rectal cancer surgery,
S. Hasegawa (*) · D. Kojima · A. Komono
R. Sakamoto · N. Aisu · Y. Yoshida
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Fukuoka
University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan
e-mail: shase@fukuoka-u.ac.jp
T. Okada · Y. Sakai
Department of Surgery, Graduate School of
Medicine, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
namely, transanal total mesorectal excision
(TaTME), has several benets over laparoscopic
surgery. This approach can also be utilized in APE
procedures and is also known as transperineal
APE (TpAPE). There are several benets of
TpAPE over the conventional method, such as better exposure of the surgical eld despite the small
skin incision used to gain perineal access. This
chapter presents the surgical procedure of TpAPE.
Anatomical Considerations
There are several important anatomical landmarks specic for APE.In this procedure, it is
important to have a thorough knowledge of the
anatomy of the striated and smooth muscle complex surrounding the anal canal. The schema of
the anatomy around the anal canal from below is
shown in Fig.41.1. The external anal sphincter
(EAS) is located at the lower part of the anal
canal and is sometimes divided into two or three
parts (subcutaneous, supercial, and deep). It is
fusiform-shaped and partly extends anteriorly
and posteriorly to connect with the bulbospongiosus muscle and the coccyx, respectively. The
transverse perineal (TP) muscles sometimes
partly intermingle with muscle bers of the anterior part of the EAS, forming the boundary
between the anterior urogenital and rectal
compartments. During APE, this muscle is a
good landmark for anterior dissection.
© 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_41
419

420
l
Anaesthesiologist
T-anal
Energy devices
S. Hasegawa et al.
EAS (s/d)
Fig. 41.1 Anatomy of around the anorectal region. (a)
External anal sphincter (EAS) level. (b) Puborectal muscle (PR) level. (c) Prostate level. BS bulbospongiosus
TP and is U-shaped with two major bilateral
slings, pulling the rectum anteriorly to form the
anorectal angle. This is the major muscle that contributes to rectal closure. The levator ani is a thin,
sheet-like muscle that is anatomically divided into
the ischiococcygeus, iliococcygeus, and puborectalis, forming the major part of the pelvic oor.
cle structures that are signicant in performing
APE.In male patients, the rectourethral muscle
(or perineal body) is an anterior extension of longitudinal smooth muscle layer of the rectum
extending toward the urethral sphincter just
below the prostate. The hiatal ligament, however,
is the posterior extension of the longitudinal
smooth muscle extending toward the coccyx.
These structures must be divided during APE,
and it is often difcult to nd an appropriate dissection plane here.
Patient Position andOperative
Setup
The patient is placed in the modied lithotomy
position. Because of the small operative eld in
the transanal/perineal approach, continuous smoke
evacuation and maintaining a stable pneumoperi-
ab
EAS (sc)
Coccygeal m
BS
TP
Coccyx
US
PR
RUMUrethra
Retcum
LA
muscle, LA levator ani muscle, NVB neurovascular bundle, RUM rectourethral muscle, TP transverse perineal
muscle, US urethral sphincter
The puborectalis muscle is located behind the
T-anal
Laparo
There are also several important smooth mus-
Fig. 41.2 Operative setup (two-team synchronous
approach)
team
Energy devices
toneum are very important for keeping the surgical
eld stable and clear. Thus, many surgeons prefer
to use the AirSeal® insufation system. We use a
two-team synchronous approach, where the laparoscopic and transperineal teams perform surgery
simultaneously. The major advantage of this twoteam approach is the easier exposure of the surgical eld with a shorter operative time. For these
reasons, this approach has recently become preferred compared with the one-team approach. The
operative setup for the two-team approach is
shown in Fig.41.2. The monitors are placed such
that each surgeon can see both operative elds.
c
Prostate
Tumor
Ns
NVB
Laparo
Laparo
T-ana
team
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
