Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_869_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
36 Мб
Скачать
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 briey, 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 condent 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-specic 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 12months 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 signicant 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 difculties in dissection, and staging specialty-specic 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 stratied 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 modied Rullier criteria, proposed by Knol and Chadi, can provide a picto­rial frame of reference to this assessment [12]. Briey, if the tumor is present more than 2cm 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 2cm 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 briey 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 identied. The coccyg­eus and internal obturator muscles are identied 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 identied and ligated dur­ing the dissection. Anteriorly, the perineal body is identied 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 difcult to perform, given difculties 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 identied lateral to the seminal vesicles. The seminal vesicles are identied when the peritoneal reection anterior to the rectum is incised. This is often performed 10–20 mm anterior to the true reection. 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 identied, 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 identied 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 supercial 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 identied. 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 identied 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-conguration 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 difculty 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 ori­ce 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 Stratication 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, etal. 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 forAbdominoperineal Excision
SuguruHasegawa, TomoakiOkada, DaiboKojima, AkiraKomono, RyoheiSakamoto, NaoyaAisu, YoichiroYoshida, andYoshiharuSakai
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 difcult 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 benets over laparoscopic surgery. This approach can also be utilized in APE procedures and is also known as transperineal APE (TpAPE). There are several benets 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 specic 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, supercial, 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 signicant 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 difcult to nd an appropriate dis­section plane here.
Patient Position andOperative Setup
The patient is placed in the modied 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® insufation 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