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_917_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1: SAGES University MASTERS Program: Colorectal Pathway
- •Introduction
- •References
- •Colorectal Surgery Curriculum
- •Facebook™ Groups
- •Conclusion
- •Operative Setup
- •Operating Room Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Trocar Placement
- •Top-Down Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique
- •Port Placement
- •Left/Sigmoid Colectomy
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Supramesocolic Approach
- •Inframesocolic Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Bibliography
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Laparoscopic Access
- •Colon Transection
- •Specimen Extraction
- •Anastomosis
- •Fistula Repair
- •Other Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Solicit Institutional Support
- •Reviewing Current Data
- •Overcoming Barriers Through Culture Change
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Risk Assessment
- •Special Considerations
- •Immune Suppression
- •Smokers
- •Malnutrition
- •Obesity
- •Renal Impairment
- •Preoperative Stoma Marking
- •Preoperative Patient Education
- •Parenteral Antibiotics
- •Positioning
- •Surgical Time-Out
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Preparation
- •Laparoscopic Access
- •Special Considerations
- •Complicated Peritoneal Entry
- •Equipment Issues
- •Physiologic Issues
- •Optimizing Laparoscopic Exposure
- •OR Table Positioning
- •Laparoscopic Visualization
- •Splenic Bleeding
- •Organ Injury
- •Small Bowel Injury
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Trocar Site Closure
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Definitions
- •Central Venous Ligation (CVL)
- •Pathological Outcomes
- •Long-Term Survival
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •12: Unexpected Findings at Appendectomy
- •Inflamed Meckel’s Diverticulum
- •Appendiceal Mass
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Cecal Diverticulitis
- •Sigmoid Diverticulitis
- •Epiploic Appendagitis
- •Crohn’s Disease
- •Gynecologic Pathology
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps, Medial-to-Lateral Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Operative Techniques
- •Positioning
- •Trocars Placement
- •Side-to-Side Stapled Anastomosis
- •Side-to-Side Handsewn Anastomosis
- •Side-to-End Stapled Anastomosis
- •Side-to-End Handsewn Anastomosis
- •End-to-Side Handsewn Anastomosis
- •End-to-End Handsewn Anastomosis
- •Operative Time
- •Spillage
- •Alignment/Ergonomics
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •da Vinci Xi® Setup (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Complex Crohn’s Disease Resection
- •Crohn’s Fistula
- •Difficult Crohn’s Mesentery
- •Ileocolonic Reconstruction
- •Intracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Extracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Entry
- •Adhesiolysis
- •Thickened Mesentery
- •Anastomotic Problems
- •Postoperative Issues
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Optimization
- •Accelerated Recovery Pathway
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Locally Advanced Tumors
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Colonic J Pouch
- •Transverse Coloplasty
- •Baker’s Anastomosis
- •Anastomotic Assessment
- •Rectal Stump Blowout
- •Staple Line Bleeding
- •Outcomes
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Anastomotic Assessment
- •Temporary Fecal Diversion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Malignant Diseases
- •Benign Diseases
- •Operative Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Room Setup
- •Operative Technique
- •Trocar Placement
- •Si® Robot (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Xi® Robot (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Si Robot
- •Xi Robot
- •Instrument Insertion
- •Extracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Intracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Instrument Collisions
- •Bleeding
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Adhesions
- •Difficult Rectal Stump Dissection
- •Rectal Stump Retraction
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Review Operative Report
- •Review Pathology Report
- •Cross-Sectional Imaging
- •Ureteral Stents
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Staging
- •Indications and Contraindications
- •Multidisciplinary Management
- •Preoperative Versus Postoperative Chemoradiation
- •Short-Course Radiotherapy
- •Intraoperative Radiation
- •Adjuvant Chemotherapy
- •Total Neoadjuvant Therapy
- •Nonoperative Management
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Other Equipment/Incisions
- •Splenic Flexure Mobilization
- •Lateral Dissection
- •Pelvic Dissection
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Extraction Site
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Splenic Flexure Release
- •Rectal Mobilization
- •Posterior Dissection
- •Lateral Dissection
- •Anterior Dissection
- •Pelvic Floor Dissection
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Synchronous Masses/Tumors
- •Meckel’s Diverticulum
- •Peritoneal Carcinomatosis
- •Liver Metastasis
- •Ovarian Mass
- •Malrotation
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Technique
- •Learning Curve
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Strategy
- •Operative Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Diagnostic Laparoscopy
- •Minimally Invasive Resectional Approach
- •Best Approach
- •Splenic Flexure Mobilization (If Needed)
- •Distal Colon Transection
- •Considerations During Laparoscopic Hartmann’s Procedure
- •Obese Patients
- •Minimally Invasive Non-resectional Approach
- •Laparoscopic Peritoneal Lavage
- •Operative Setup
- •Port Placement
- •Postoperative Management
- •Outcomes
- •Resection
- •Laparoscopic Lavage
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Splenic Flexure Release
- •Colonic Conduit Ischemia
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Surgeon-Related Factors
- •Bowel Preparation
- •Ureteral Stents
- •Patient Positioning
- •Pneumoperitoneum
- •Laparoscopic Exposure: Trocars
- •Laparoscopic Adhesiolysis

15 Robotic Right-Sided Colon Resection: Unique Considerations andOptimal 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 0.85days; 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
48.5months (range, 24–114 months), the survival rates were 94.5% for diseasespecic (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. Specic 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. Robotic right col-
ectomy with modied 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, etal. Robotic versus
laparoscopic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for the treatment of colon

15 Robotic Right-Sided Colon Resection: Unique Considerations andOptimal 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 forCrohn’s andReoperative
16
Surgery
AlexanderJohnGreenstein andBarrySalky
Introduction andRationale
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
5years and approximately 50% at 10years [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
inammatory and stulizing disease. While similar difculties 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 [4–7]. 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 andContraindications
Indications for laparoscopic revisional surgery for CD are the same as for primary CD and including medically refractory brostenotic, stulizing disease,
and recurrent inammatory 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 benet even more from a minimally
invasive approach.
Principles andQuality 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 forCrohn’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,
identication of the duodenum and ureter and meticulous lysis of adhesions are
paramount.
Preoperative Planning, Patient Work-Up, andOptimization
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
dene the anatomy of the diseased segments as well as “occult” areas that may not
be clinically signicant 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 ofce 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 denitively 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 iniximab does not increase postoperative complication rates,
others have suggested worse outcomes with newer biologic agents such as vedolizumab especially when used within 3months of surgery [8–12].
In general, if possible, most of these medications should be stopped at least
2weeks 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 1hour 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
andTroubleshooting
Abdominal Entry andTrocar 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 forCrohn’s…
Fig. 16.1 Laparoscopic
port setup: three 5mm
ports and a 12mm port
241
access. In general, we like to approach the pathology further away. Whenever possible, 5mm trocars should be preferentially used, with a 12mm trocar reserved for
the use of an endoscopic stapler and preferably placed in planned extraction sites.
Additional 5mm 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 5mm camera as this allows the camera to be placed in different trocar locations during adhesiolysis and disease mobilization.
Adhesiolysis andIntestinal Dissection
The extent and density of adhesions can vary signicantly 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 inammatory, 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 denitive 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 identication 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 inammation, 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 identication 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
identication 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 identiable 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 forCrohn’s…
243
Crohn’s Abscess, Phlegmon, andMass
Intraperitoneal, pelvic, or retroperitoneal abscess formation remains a serious complication of Crohn’s stulizing disease. Assuming that the collection is greater than
5cm 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 3months to allow for the
inammatory 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 difcult 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 difculty 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 inammation often tends to be adjacent
to the conuence 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 supercial 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 identication.
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 inamed 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
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
