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_917_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
32 Мб
Скачать
15 Robotic Right-Sided Colon Resection: Unique Considerations andOptimal Setup
Total hospital cost ($)
LRC/RRC
Complication rate (%)
LRC/RRC
Operative time (min)
LRC/RRC
233
Number of patients
LRC/RRC
Study type Study period Study design
de’Angelis [20] Single center 2012–2015 Retrospective 50/30 204/200 0/1 Not reported
Lujan [6] Single center 2009–2015 Retrospective 185/89 Not reported 25.8/32.6 Not reported
Dolejs [19] Multicenter 2012–2014 Retrospective 6521/259 133/173 22/ 22 Not reported
Davis [17] Multicenter 2009–2011 Retrospective 207/207 179/247 LRC=RRC 16,396/18,515
Trastulli [5] Multicenter 2005–2014 Retrospective 40/102 208/287 20/22.5 Not reported
Casillas [18] Single center 2005–2012 Prospective 110/52 79/143 35/17 (p=0.03) Not reported
First author
Table 15.1 Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic right colectomy
LRC laparoscopic right colectomy, RRC robotic right colectomy
234
K. Umanskiy
to 0.6, p<0.001), while the rate of conversion was less in the robotic group (RR
1.7; 95% CI 1.1–2.6, p=0.02). There was a trend toward higher lymph node yield during robotic right colectomy than for laparoscopic right colectomy (23.4 versus
24.3), p=0.057. Postoperative complications, morbidity, and mortality were similar between the two procedures. Return of bowel function, as determined by passage of atus, was earlier in robotic group (SMD 0.85days; 95% CI 0.16–1.54, p=0.016). The incidence of other complications such as anastomotic leak, postoperative hem­orrhage, ileus, wound infection, abdominal abscess, and incisional hernia was simi­lar between the groups.
Robotic colectomy is considered feasible and safe in regard to oncologic out­comes. Spinoglio and colleagues [3] reported results of their study of 100 consecu­tive patients who underwent robotic CME. With a median follow-up period of
48.5months (range, 24–114 months), the survival rates were 94.5% for disease­specic (DSS), 91.4% for disease-free survival (DFS), and 90.3% for overall sur­vival. The DSS rates were 100% for stage 1 cancer, 97.1% for stage 2 cancer, and
89.3% for stage 3 cancer. The disease-free survival rates were 100% for stage 1 cancer, 94.3% for stage 2 cancer, and 78.2% for stage 3 cancer. The overall survival rates were 95% for stage I, 91.7% for stage II, and 86.3% for stage III cancer. The anastomotic leak rate was 1%.
The cost of robotic surgery for right colectomy remains higher than laparoscopy [16, 17]. The pooled mean surgery-related costs was higher in the robotic group ($5953; 95% CI 2223–9684) than in the laparoscopic one ($3930; 95% CI 1733– 6127; p=0.051) [15].

Conclusions

Robotic right colectomy is considered to be feasible and safe procedure with post­operative morbidity and mortality rates similar to the laparoscopic approach, among surgeons who have overcome their learning curve. Specic surgical complications such as anastomotic leak, postoperative hemorrhage, postoperative ileus, wound infections, and abdominal abscess are similar between the two procedures.

References

1. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Ricci J, Park JJ, Marecik SJ, Zimmern A, etal. A comparison of
open and robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(3):275–82.
2. Ozben V, Baca B, Atasoy D, Bayraktar O, Aghayeva A, Cengiz TB, etal. Robotic complete
mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(10):4624–5.
3. Spinoglio G, Marano A, Bianchi PP, Priora F, Lenti LM, Ravazzoni F, etal. Robotic right col-
ectomy with modied complete mesocolic excision: long-term oncologic outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(Suppl 5):684–91.
4. Spinoglio G, Bianchi PP, Marano A, Priora F, Lenti LM, Ravazzoni F, etal. Robotic versus
laparoscopic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for the treatment of colon
15 Robotic Right-Sided Colon Resection: Unique Considerations andOptimal Setup
cancer: perioperative outcomes and 5-year survival in a consecutive series of 202 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Nov;25(12):3580–6.
5. Trastulli S, Coratti A, Guarino S, Piagnerelli R, Annecchiarico M, Coratti F, etal. Robotic right
colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared with laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(6):1512–21.
6. Lujan HJ, Plasencia G, Rivera BX, Molano A, Fagenson A, Jane LA, et al. Advantages of
robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2018;28(1):36–41.
7. Harr JN, Juo YY, Luka S, Agarwal S, Brody F, Obias V.Incisional and port-site hernias follow-
ing robotic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(8):3505–10.
8. Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Quezada-Diaz F, Tchack M, Pappou E, Wei IH, Smith JJ, etal. Use
of the Xi robotic platform for total abdominal colectomy: a step forward in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(3):966–71.
9. Protyniak B, Jorden J, Farmer R.Multiquadrant robotic colorectal surgery: the da Vinci Xi vs
Si comparison. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(1):67–74.
10. Harr JN, Luka S, Kankaria A, Juo YY, Agarwal S, Obias V.Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery
in obese patients: a case-matched series. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(7):2813–9.
11. Formisano G, Misitano P, Giuliani G, Calamati G, Salvischiani L, Bianchi PP.Laparoscopic
versus robotic right colectomy: technique and outcomes. Updat Surg. 2016;68(1):63–9.
12. Morelli L, Palmeri M, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, Moglia A, Ferrari V, etal. Use of a new inte-
grated table motion for the da Vinci Xi in colorectal surgery. Int J Color Dis. 2016;31(9):1671–3.
13. Lee HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY, Kim HJ, Woo IT, etal. A novel robotic right colectomy for
colon cancer via the suprapubic approach using the da Vinci Xi system: initial clinical experi­ence. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2018;94(2):83–7.
14. Samia H, Lawrence J, Nobel T, Stein S, Champagne BJ, Delaney CP.Extraction site location
and incisional hernias after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: should we be avoiding the mid­line? Am J Surg. 2013;205(3):264–7; discussion 8
15. Solaini L, Bazzocchi F, Cavaliere D, Avanzolini A, Cucchetti A, Ercolani G.Robotic versus
laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(3):1104–10.
16. Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY, Kim HJ, Ryuk JP.Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted ver-
sus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99(9):1219–26.
17. Davis BR, Yoo AC, Moore M, Gunnarsson C.Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy:
cost and clinical outcomes. JSLS. 2014;18(2):211–24.
18. Casillas MA Jr, Leichtle SW, Wahl WL, Lampman RM, Welch KB, Wellock T, etal. Improved
perioperative and short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal operations. Am J Surg. 2014;208(1):33–40.
19. Dolejs SC, Waters JA, Ceppa EP, Zarzaur BL. Laparoscopic versus robotic colectomy: a
national surgical quality improvement project analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(6):2387–96.
20. de’Angelis N, Lizzi V, Azoulay D, Brunetti F. Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy
for colon cancer: analysis of the initial simultaneous learning curve of a surgical fellow. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26(11):882–92.
235
Advanced Laparoscopic Right Colectomy Techniques forCrohn’s andReoperative
16
Surgery
AlexanderJohnGreenstein andBarrySalky
Introduction andRationale
Crohn’s disease (CD) surgery, both primary and revisional, may present unique challenges for the surgeon. Because there is currently no cure for CD, recurrent disease after prior resection is relatively common. The risk of endoscopic and surgi­cal recurrence increases with time. Documented recurrence rates are 20–25% at 5years and approximately 50% at 10years [1]. Not all of these patients will require surgery, but as recurrence tends to mimic the original presentation, many of these patients will require repeat resections over their lifetime. This is one of the main reasons a minimally invasive approach is particularly advantageous in this popula­tion, as it may lessen the incidence of abdominal wall hernia. Another relevant advantage of a laparoscopic approach is the reduction in abdominal adhesions fol­lowing resection which potentially could make subsequent surgery less demanding. Multiple articles have documented decreased adhesions and decreased adhesive obstructions following laparoscopic surgery [2, 3].
Although simple brostenotic CD is typically easy to manage laparoscopically, the surgical complexity of resections increases dramatically in the setting of severe inammatory and stulizing disease. While similar difculties may be encountered during surgery for cancer and/or diverticulitis, these complicating factors are more commonly encountered in CD, particularly in right-sided disease. Surgeons should be prepared to encounter these ndings and plan their surgical approach accord­ingly. There is evidence from several large retrospective series that complex CD can
A. J. Greenstein (*) Mount Sinai Hospital, Department of Surgery and Health Policy, New York, NY, USA e-mail: alexander.greenstein@mountsinai.org
B. Salky Mount Sinai Hospital, Department of Surgery, New York, NY, USA
© Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) 2020 P. Sylla et al. (eds.), The SAGES Manual of Colorectal Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24812-3_16
237
238
be approached safely and effectively laparoscopically, with reduced hospital stay and comparable or fewer complications including decreased adhesions and decreased adhesive obstructions relative to open surgery [47]. We will discuss these various scenarios in detail below. All surgeons taking care of these patients should be familiar with advanced laparoscopic techniques, especially for those with recurrent disease.
A. J. Greenstein and B. Salky
Indications andContraindications
Indications for laparoscopic revisional surgery for CD are the same as for pri­mary CD and including medically refractory brostenotic, stulizing disease, and recurrent inammatory disease with abscess or phlegmon. Absolute contra­indications to a laparoscopic approach include hemodynamic instability or other medical conditions precluding tolerance of pneumoperitoneum and intestinal perforation with diffuse intraabdominal spillage. Relative contraindications include intestinal obstruction with massive abdominal distention and severely decreased working space and/or friability of the bowel wall. If it is safe to defer surgery, a period of nasogastric tube decompression, bowel rest, and parenteral nutrition is highly recommended in order to facilitate a laparoscopic approach in these patients.
Reoperation in the setting of multiple prior abdominal surgeries, while feasi­ble, requires a change in strategy with respect to establishing safe intraabdominal access, planned steps of the procedure, and manipulating the bowel. Achieving adequate exposure and evaluating the bowel proximal and distal to the pathology can be challenging in the setting of dense adhesions. Careful review of preopera­tive imaging is critical in order to determine the best intraoperative strategy. High BMI in the setting of reoperative or Crohn’s surgery is not a contraindication to laparoscopy, and we would consider it to actually create an even stronger indica­tion for surgery as these patients stand to benet even more from a minimally invasive approach.
Principles andQuality Benchmarks
The primary guiding principle for all surgery in CD is bowel conservation. This is especially the case in patients with multifocal disease and those who require recur­rent resections. Although the goal of the resection is to remove the diseased seg­ment, resection to microscopically negative margins has not been shown to decrease the rate or time to recurrence or increase quality of life. Strictureplasty should be considered when appropriate, especially in multifocal disease, i.e., multiple narrow segments over a long span of bowel. Avoidance of intestinal leak is also critical to reduce bowel loss. As stulizing disease is common in CD, it is important to spare the normal bowel attached to the diseased bowel whenever possible. In general, almost all internal connections can be divided laparoscopically using endoscopic
16 Advanced Laparoscopic Right Colectomy Techniques forCrohn’s…
239
linear staplers. This will decrease the extent of bowel that is resected and decrease the size of the extraction incision as well. During reoperative ileocolic resection, identication of the duodenum and ureter and meticulous lysis of adhesions are paramount.
Preoperative Planning, Patient Work-Up, andOptimization
As bowel conservation is key to the success of resection for primary or recurrent CD, the preoperative work-up is critical in determining the planned surgical proce­dure. A thorough review of prior operative reports will provide details regarding the extent and location of all prior resections and/or strictureplasties, length of small bowel removed and of small bowel remaining, as well as type of anastomosis previ­ously created. Recent CT and MR enterography (CTE/MRE) can be very helpful to dene the anatomy of the diseased segments as well as “occult” areas that may not be clinically signicant or visualized on endoscopy may dramatically affect the operative plan. We have found it very useful to review these with experienced radi­ologists preoperatively. We also highly recommend a preoperative colonoscopy on all patients. Ileosigmoid stulas are common, and it is helpful to evaluate the sig­moid mucosa prior to dividing the stula. While CD typically affects the ileum, it is possible to have sigmoid disease concurrently which would make a double resection mandatory.
For patients in whom fecal diversion is anticipated, preoperative marking of stoma sites by an enterostomal therapist is critical for improved function and quality of life. If an enterostomal nurse is not available, it is critical that the patient is marked in the ofce or even in the preoperative area the day of surgery. We recom­mend that the patient be examined while sitting up, standing, and lying down in order to identify a location away from creases, scars, and belt line and ensure that it is in an area that the patient is able to see (i.e., not below a large pannus). We recom­mend marking patients preoperatively even if a stoma is not denitively planned for as operative conditions may determine the need for one and marking the patient on the operating room table will lead to unsatisfactory results. A thorough discussion between the physician and the patients/family and GI doctor is also helpful in man­aging short- and long-term expectations regarding disease control and potential need for reoperation.
Physiological optimization is required in all elective patients with CD.Nutrition and anemia should be corrected as much as the clinical condition will allow. There is some debate about the impact of new biologics and anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) medications on postoperative infectious complications and on the safest time interval between the last dose and surgery. While some studies have shown that preoperative use of iniximab does not increase postoperative complication rates, others have suggested worse outcomes with newer biologic agents such as vedoli­zumab especially when used within 3months of surgery [812].
In general, if possible, most of these medications should be stopped at least 2weeks prior to surgery. Unfortunately it may not be possible to wean these patients
240
completely from their immunosuppression as their disease may worsen and their clinical condition may deteriorate prior to surgery. In our own experience, with the exception of steroids, recent use of biologics has not been found to increase postop­erative morbidity.
A. J. Greenstein and B. Salky

Operative Setup

In general, if an ileosigmoid stula is not present and a left colectomy, sigmoid, or rectosigmoid resection is not required, the patient is placed supine, with arms tucked at the sides. It is key to protect against all potential nerve injury sites, including the brachial plexus. A urinary drainage catheter is always placed, as is an orogastric tube. Preoperative antibiotic dosing is performed within 1hour of the incision. All patients have sequential compression devices (SCDs) on and functioning during the operation, and many surgeons prefer to give the rst perioperative dose of subcuta­neous heparin at this time. For right-sided disease, the surgeon and assistant stand on the patient’s left, and the OR nurse and video monitor are on the patient’s right. If an ileosigmoid stula is present or a left colectomy and sigmoid/anterior resec­tion is required, the patient is placed in low lithotomy position utilizing stirrups with the thighs exed in such a manner as to not impede the abdominal instruments and allow access to the anus for potential endoscopic evaluation and stapler placement. As the patient is frequently placed in steep, head down position, some type of xa­tion to the OR table is highly recommended (belts, pink pad, bean bag, tape).
There are multiple laparoscopic energy devices available, and each one of them is adequate for dissection and vessel division. Mechanical hemostatic devices are available as well. Each surgeon tends to have their preferred device for vessel seal­ing, and we have found no difference in outcome with any of them. It is important to be familiar with whichever device is being used, especially regarding trouble­shooting. None of these devices are infallible during dissection or mesenteric divi­sion especially with thick, friable Crohn’s mesentery.
Operative Technique: Surgical Steps Including Pitfalls andTroubleshooting
Abdominal Entry andTrocar Placement
Safe intraabdominal access is essential to decreasing complications at the earliest phase of the operation. There are multiple methods to gain access to the abdomen in previously operated patients, none of which have shown superiority with respect to avoiding injury. Whichever method is used, we would not place the rst trocar through a previous scar as the chance of bowel adhesions under a scar is high. We prefer an open (Hasson) approach or use of an optical viewing trocar at Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. Following entry, the abdominal wall under the original trocar is visualized to ensure a through and through bowel injury has not occurred. On occasion, several entry sites will be attempted in order to gain safe
16 Advanced Laparoscopic Right Colectomy Techniques forCrohn’s…
Fig. 16.1 Laparoscopic
port setup: three 5mm ports and a 12mm port
241
access. In general, we like to approach the pathology further away. Whenever pos­sible, 5mm trocars should be preferentially used, with a 12mm trocar reserved for the use of an endoscopic stapler and preferably placed in planned extraction sites. Additional 5mm trocars should be added as necessary in order to optimize visual­ization and exposure. Please see Fig.16.1 for typical port placement. We prefer the use of a 5mm camera as this allows the camera to be placed in different trocar loca­tions during adhesiolysis and disease mobilization.
Adhesiolysis andIntestinal Dissection
The extent and density of adhesions can vary signicantly from case to case. It is for this reason that we believe that diagnostic laparoscopy should be performed in every patient before committing to an open operation. In some cases, minimal adhesions are found, and laparoscopic reoperative resection will be as straightforward as pri­mary resection. In Crohn’s patients, it is thought that this may be due to their chronic immunosuppression. More typically, however, extensive laparoscopically lysis of adhesions and bowel mobilization will be needed to expose anatomic landmarks and the pathology. Even if the case is ultimately converted to open due to inability to fully expose the pathology, the size of the extraction may be reduced by having mobilized the bowel proximal and distal to the pathology laparoscopically. Surgeons should be familiar with multiple techniques for safe adhesiolysis.
242
A. J. Greenstein and B. Salky
In general, sharp “cold” dissection with endoshears is safer than using monopo­lar cautery or bipolar energy and will avoid inadvertent burn injury and delayed enterotomy. There is a clear difference between “lmy” adhesions (nonvascular), which can usually be teased apart and easily transected, and “dense” adhesions which are vascularized or inammatory, which will not separate without sharp dis­section. The two guiding principles in adhesiolysis are preventing bowel injury and maintaining hemostasis. Traction and counter-traction principles are just as impor­tant in laparoscopic adhesiolysis as in open surgery. However, the amount of coun­ter-traction provided by an assistant is hard to estimate and control. Serosal tearing to bowel wall can occur passively by assistant traction on the bowel against a point of xation. Overzealous grasping of friable bowel can result in partial- or full-thick­ness tearing. Therefore, we prefer limiting the traction applied by the assistant and use the assistant only when necessary during this phase of the operation. The other important consideration is to stay in the proper dissection plane. When dissecting off the abdominal wall, a clear plane exists on the parietal peritoneum. It tends to be avascular. When dissecting between two loops of bowel or two loops of mesentery, it is important to go slowly and stay in the avascular plane. If bleeding occurs, it is most likely due to an improper dissection plan. After extensive adhesiolysis, it is important to check for serosal tears and enterotomies prior to moving on with the resection, and this should be repeated again at the end of the procedure. If there is any question about injury, we recommend marking the area with a suture or an endoloop for closer inspection and denitive suture repair later during the case.
Complex Crohn’s Disease Resection
As with any other complex surgery, mastery of the anatomy and careful dissection techniques are required to identify anatomic landmarks during complex or reoperative right colectomy such as the right ureter, kidney, and duodenum. Laparoscopic reop­erative surgery for CD follows the same steps as for primary resection. Differences include identication of the prior anastomosis and its mesentery and careful mobiliza­tion of the anastomosis from surrounding structures, which is usually complicated by brosis, acute or chronic inammation, and/or stulas. Once mobilized fully, the planned resection of the anastomosis and adjacent diseased bowel and construction of a new ileocolonic anastomosis is performed. As most patients have had the retroperi­toneum exposed previously, repeat dissection and identication of landmarks is often more challenging, especially in the setting of scarring, brosis, abscesses, phlegmons, and stulas. Rather than dissecting the mesentery using a medial to lateral approach during reoperative right colectomy, a lateral to medial approach may facilitate ureteral identication and avoid inadvertent injury. This is particularly useful in CD where the mesentery can be very thickened and friable and not suitable to be taken safely via a minimally invasive approach with an energy device.
Additionally, in reoperative Crohn’s disease with prior resection, the mesentery to the diseased bowel may not be readily identiable until after full mobilization of the diseased segment and therefore best to be divided after lateral to medial mobilization.
16 Advanced Laparoscopic Right Colectomy Techniques forCrohn’s…
243
Crohn’s Abscess, Phlegmon, andMass
Intraperitoneal, pelvic, or retroperitoneal abscess formation remains a serious com­plication of Crohn’s stulizing disease. Assuming that the collection is greater than 5cm and there is a safe window on imaging, preoperative drainage under radiologi­cal control is standard of care. If percutaneous drainage is not possible, preoperative or simultaneous surgical aspiration may be necessary. Eventually, the diseased seg­ment and source of the abscess requires resection.
After successful drainage of intraabdominal or retroperitoneal abscess and return to optimal health, resection of the associated segment of bowel may be attempted laparoscopically. We recommend waiting approximately 3months to allow for the inammatory changes to resolve and the patient to be medically and nutritionally optimized. Conversion, or hand-assisted laparoscopy with a smaller incision may be necessary in the most difcult cases, but we typically begin with a pure laparoscopic approach even in the setting of a large phlegmon. The prevailing goal in these cases is to mobilize the phlegmonous mass in order to exteriorize it through as small an incision as possible (midline or off-midline). We generally approach this using a lateral to medial approach given the thickened mesentery that tends to accompany a Crohn’s mass and the difculty manipulating it.
Often the hepatic exure, even if previously mobilized, is not diseased and is an optimal place to begin a lateral to medial dissection. After mobilizing the hepatic exure, we continue the lateral to medial dissection down toward the ileocolic angle. Unfortunately, the area with greatest inammation often tends to be adjacent to the conuence of the ureter and iliac vessels. Appropriate use of blunt dissection is paramount to a successful mobilization of the disease and avoidance of collateral damage. Our instrument of choice is the suction-irrigating device (which allows for simultaneous clearance of blood or purulence) or laparoscopic peanut which can serve as a replacement for open nger fracture dissection. A bipolar or ultrasonic device should be available to lyse scar tissue when determined safe. Eventually, the scar will need to be penetrated leaving the mesentery of the ileocolic region, and the mass can be mobilized medially. If one enters a retroperitoneal plane, one must be careful to remain supercial and anterior to the ureter. Ureteral catheters with and without the use of lighted devices or indocyanine green (ICG) can be used at the surgeon’s discretion for ureteral identication.
Crohn’s Fistula
Ileosigmoid and ileorectal stulae are relatively common in patients with stulizing disease. One large case series estimated the prevalence of internal stulizing disease at 6% for all CD patients and, of those, 19% possessed stulas from the ileum to the sigmoid colon [13]. In these stulae, the inamed terminal ileum most commonly adheres to the medial aspect of the sigmoid colon, which is usually otherwise healthy, but on occasion there is disease of both the terminal ileum and sigmoid colon. Because of this, dealing with the sigmoid side of the stula can involve either simple