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

17 Laparoscopic Left andSigmoid Colectomy forMalignant Disease
Fig. 17.3 Identifying the
left ureter
Fig. 17.4 High ligation
of the inferior mesenteric
artery
265
Fig. 17.5 High ligation
of the inferior mesenteric
vein
splenocolic ligament is divided. By detaching the mesocolon off the kidney at
Gerota’s fascia, the last attachments of the colon can be taken down sharply to
achieve complete mobilization of the splenic exure.
The identication of the proximal and distal points of transection can be performed with the assistance of indocyanine green enhanced uorescence as shown in

266
Fig. 17.6 Perfusion assessment
M. I. Chang and E. Messaris
Fig.17.6. An intracorporeal transection of the rectosigmoid junction is performed
with the laparoscopic stapler at the conuence of the taenia coli. The specimen can
be extracted through an extended off midline lower-quadrant trocar site (such as the
12mm trocar site) or a suprapubic (Pfannenstiel) incision, a technique that is associated with a lower hernia rate.
The descending colon can be transected at least 5cm proximal to the tumor, and
the anvil of a circular stapler can then be secured in the colon with a purse-string
suture. The perineal operator then inserts the circular stapler transanally and deploys
the pin through the midportion of the staple line of the rectal stump to complete an
end-to-end colorectal anastomosis. An alternative approach would be to perform a
side-to-end colorectal anastomosis by placing the anvil through the anti-mesocolic
border of the descending colon. In either case, the anastomotic rings are checked for
intactness and sent to pathology as additional proximal and distal margin. An air
leak test of the anastomosis is performed with endoscopic assessment under laparoscopic visualization. Before closing, reassess if any unexpected ndings during the
surgery would warrant an unplanned diverting ostomy or placement of a drain.
Several randomized trials and a meta-analysis suggest that routine use of drains for
left colectomy is not recommended [19].
Pitfalls, Troubleshooting, andSpecial Considerations
Difficulty Identifying theUreter
The left ureter should be clearly identied and safely dissected free of the left colon
mesentery prior to the division or the IMA or the IMV. A ureteral stent may be
inserted at the discretion of the surgeon. To help facilitate identication, these

17 Laparoscopic Left andSigmoid Colectomy forMalignant Disease
maneuvers may be taken in a step-wise fashion: access the retroperitoneum at the
level of the superior rectal artery at the sacral promontory, identify the IMV, and
open the medial aspect of the peritoneum to develop a plane in the retroperitoneum.
Dissection can proceed caudally until the sacral promontory to identify the ureter.
As an alternative to locate the ureter, mobilize the colon in a lateral to medial fashion to completely expose it, utilize a hand port, or convert to open to directly palpate
for the ureter.
267
Difficulty withReach
Resection of a proximal left colon lesion (splenic exure, proximal descending)
may require division of both branches of the middle colic artery to allow the proximal transverse colon to reach the rectal stump for anastomosis. The division of the
left colic artery, marginal, and the middle colic vessels can lead to poor perfusion of
the remaining transverse colon and can lead either to evident intraoperative colonic
ischemia or to an under-perfused colorectal anastomosis with associated complications such as anastomotic leak, stricture, and segmental narrowing of the transverse
colon. In cases where the transverse colon does not have adequate blood supply or
cannot reach the rectum, if maintenance of the right colon is preferred, a retroileal
right colon to rectum anastomosis may be performed versus an extended right colectomy with an ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis.
Locally Advanced Tumors
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, T4a tumors can be approached laparoscopically with caution and can be completely removed. When there is clear invasion of
an adjacent organ by a T4b tumor, conversion to an open approach is recommended
[8]. En bloc resection of the colon and involved organ should be performed with the
goal of achieving R0 resection.
When toConsider Conversion
The surgeon should consider conversion to a different approach if there is failure to
progress over a signicant period of time. Furthermore, excessive bleeding, unexpected organ injury, signicant amount of adhesions, and difculty in obtaining a
high ligation of the vessels should prompt the surgeon to consider changing the
surgical approach either to open or to another laparoscopic technique that can assist
with solving the occurring problem. Strategies that can enhance the surgeon’s ability to deal with intraoperative difculties or complications would include the placement of additional ports or hand assistance. If these strategies fail, the case should
be converted to open surgery.

268
Table 17.1 Prospective, randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic versus open sur-
gery for colorectal cancer
N
Trial (year)
COST (2004,
2007)
CLASICC
(2007, 2013)
COLOR (2009) 627:621 21:20% 1:2% 74.2:76.2
Australasian
(2012)
JCOG0404
(2017)
DFS disease-free survival, OS overall survival, NA not available
a
3-year period vs. 5year
(lap:open)
435:437 19:19% <1:1% 69.2:68.4%
526:268 33:32% 4:5% 77.0;89.5%
290:297 NA NA 72.7:71.2%
529:528 10:13% 0:<1% 79.3:79.7% 91.8:90.4%
Postoperative
complications (%)
30-day
mortality
M. I. Chang and E. Messaris
5-year DFS
(%); p-value
(p=0.94)
(p=0.589)
(p=0.19)
(p=0.70)
a
5-year OS
(%); p-value
76.4:74.6%
(p=0.93)
82.7:78.3
(p=0.78)
81.8:84.2
(p=0.21)
77.7:76.0%
(p=0.64)
a
Outcomes
Laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer has been found to have short-term benets relative to open surgery and to be as safe and efcacious as open surgery. The
COST trial published in 2004 was the initial large multicenter study group with
almost 900 patients randomized to either open or laparoscopic approaches, with no
differences found in overall survival or disease-free survival [3, 4]. This was followed by the UK CLASICC trial in 2005 and the European COLOR trial in 2009
which echoed similar ndings [5–7]. More recently, the Australian Laparoscopic
Colon Cancer Study trial conducted across Australia and New Zealand in 2012 and
the Japanese JCOG0404 trials have continued to demonstrate and uphold the shortterm benets for the laparoscopic approach without differences in long-term overall
survival, disease-free survival, and recurrence rates [20, 21]. The results of these
ve trials are summarized in Table17.1.
While participants in the COST trial were required to have performed at least 20
laparoscopically assisted colectomies with a conversion rate of less than 21%, other
publications have suggested that the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery ranges from 20 to 70 cases [22–28]. In Tekkis and colleagues, the learning
curve for laparoscopic left colectomy, based on operative time, conversion to open,
postoperative complications, and readmission rates, was calculated as 62 cases [28].
While laparoscopic left colectomy continues to be a technically challenging procedure, studies have shown that operative autonomy can be mastered in a structured
training protocol in a specialized surgical fellowship [29, 30].
Conclusions
While laparoscopic approach for left-sided and sigmoid colon cancers can achieve
similar oncologic outcomes in the setting of faster return of bowel function and
shorter length of hospital stay, performing a complete oncologic resection,

17 Laparoscopic Left andSigmoid Colectomy forMalignant Disease
269
including a proximal and distal margin of >5cm and an adequate lymphadenectomy
of >12 regional lymph nodes, is paramount in patient outcome. Special attention
and consideration should be taken based on patient and tumor characteristics to
determine if the patient is a candidate for a laparoscopic approach.
References
1. Arnold M, Sierra MS, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F.Global patterns and
trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut. 2017;66(4):683–91.
2. Bailey CE, Hu CY, You YN, Bednarski BK, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM, etal. Increasing
disparities in the age-related incidences of colon and rectal cancers in the United States, 1975-
2010. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(1):17–22.
3. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group, Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS,
Fleshman J, Anvari M, etal. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy
for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(20):2050–9.
4. Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW Jr, etal. Laparoscopic col-
ectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study
Group trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246(4):655–62.
5. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM, etal. Randomized trial
of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC
CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(21):3061–8.
6. Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F, Quirke P, Guillou P, Jayne DG, etal. Long-term follow-
up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically
assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100(1):75–82.
7. Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group, Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop
WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J, etal. Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon
cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(1):44–52.
8. Klaver CEL, Kappen TM, Borstlap WAA, Bemelman WA, Tanis PJ.Laparoscopic surgery for
T4 colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(12):4902–12.
9. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx.
10. Lee CHA, Kong JC, Ismail H, Riedel B, Heriot A.Systematic review and meta-analysis of
objective assessment of physical tness in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Dis
Colon Rectum. 2018;61(3):400–9.
11. Hennessey DB, Burke JP, Ni-Dhonochu T, Shields C, Winter DC, Mealy K. Preoperative
hypoalbuminemia is an independent risk factor for the development of surgical site infection
following gastrointestinal surgery: a multi-institutional study. Ann Surg. 2010;252:325–9.
12. Marimuthu K, Varadhan KK, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN.A meta-analysis of the effect of com-
binations of immune modulating nutrients on outcome in patients undergoing major open gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg. 2012;255:1060–8.
13. Wilson MJ, van Haaren M, Harlaar JJ, Park HC, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J, etal. Long-term prog-
nostic value of preoperative anemia in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Surg Oncol. 2017;26(1):96–104.
14. Sørensen LT.Wound healing and infection in surgery: the pathophysiological impact of smok-
ing, smoking cessation, and nicotine replacement therapy: a systematic review. Ann Surg.
2012;255(6):1069–79.
15. Tanner J, Padley W, Assadian O, Leaper D, Kiernan M, Edmiston C.Do surgical care bundles
reduce the risk of surgical site infections in patients undergoing colorectal surgery? A systematic review and cohort meta-analysis of 8,515 patients. Surgery. 2015;158(1):66–77.
16. Scarborough JE, Mantyh CR, Sun Z, Migaly J.Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic
bowel preparation reduces incisional surgical site infection and anastomotic leak rates after
elective colorectal resection: an analysis of colectomy-targeted ACS NSQIP. Ann Surg.
2015;262(2):331–7.

270
17. Carmichael JC, Keller DS, Baldini G, Bordeianou L, Weiss E, Lee L, etal. Clinical practice
guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society
of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic
Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60:761–84.
18. McClane J, Feldman LS, Steele SR. Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery
after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons
and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum.
2017;60(8):761–84.
19. Zhang HY, Zhao CL, Xie J, Ye YW, Sun JF, Ding ZH, etal. To drain or not to drain in colorectal
anastomosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31(5):951–60.
20. Bagshaw PF, Allardyce RA, Frampton CM, Frizelle FA, Hewett PJ, McMurrick PJ, et al.
Long-term outcomes of the australasian randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and
conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon
Cancer Study trial. Ann Surg. 2012;256(6):915–9.
21. Kitano S, Inomata M, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, Watanabe M, Yamamoto S, et al. Survival
outcomes following laparoscopic versus open D3 dissection for stage II or III colon cancer (JCOG0404): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2017;2(4):261–8.
22. Senagore AJ, Ma L, Mackeigan JM.What is the learning curve for laparoscopic colectomy?
Am Surg. 1995;61:681–5.
23. Simons AJ, Anthone GJ, Ortega AE, Franklin M, Fleshman J, Gesi WP, etal. Laparoscopic-
assisted colectomy learning curve. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:600–3.
24. Wishner JD, Baker JW Jr, Hoffman GC, Hubbard GWII, Gould RJ, Wohlgemuth SD, et al.
Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. The learning curve. Surg Endosc. 1995;9:1179–83.
25. Agachan F, Joo JS, Sher M, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD. Laparoscopic colorectal
surgery. Do we get faster? Surg Endosc. 1997;11:331–5.
26. Schlachta CM, Mamazza J, Seshadri PA, Cadeddu M, Gregoire R, Poulin EC.Dening a
learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal resections. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:217–22.
27. Dincler S, Koller MT, Steurer J, Bachmann LM, Christen D, Buchmann P.Multidimensional
analysis of learning curves in laparoscopic sigmoid resection: eight-year results. Dis Colon
Rectum. 2003;46:1371–9.
28. Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW. Evaluation of the learning curve in lapa-
roscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections. Ann Surg.
2005;242:83–91.
29. Li JC, Hon SS, Ng SS, Lee JF, Yiu RY, Leung KL. The learning curve for laparoscopic
colectomy: experience of a surgical fellow in an university colorectal unit. Surg Endosc.
2009;23:1603–8.
30. Waters JA, Chihara R, Moreno J, Robb BW, Wiebke EA, George VV. Laparoscopic col-
ectomy: does the learning curve extend beyond colorectal surgery fellowship? JSLS.
2010;14(3):325–31.
M. I. Chang and E. Messaris

Laparoscopic Left andSigmoid
Colectomy: Options forColonic
18
andColorectal Reconstruction
MatthewG.Mutch
Introduction andRationale
This chapter will focus on the construction of colorectal anastomosis after laparoscopic resection of the left and sigmoid colon or low anterior resection. Therefore,
anastomoses of the colon to anywhere on the rectum ranging from the upper rectum
to the level of the pelvic oor will be covered. Indications and contraindications for
performing an anastomosis, types of anastomoses, options for exteriorization of the
colon, anastomotic assessment, and recognizing and managing intraoperative anastomotic complications will be discussed. Surgical technique and judgment are paramount for a successful anastomosis as this is one of the most important aspects of
the entire operation. The primary goals for restoring intestinal continuity are to
maintain the patient’s quality of life and avoid the associated complications of an
anastomosis such as leak, bleeding, and stricturing.
Indications andContraindications
An anastomosis can be performed after any left-sided resection provided that the
sphincter complex remains intact. The decision to perform an anastomosis in a
given patient involves several factors that are related to the specic circumstances
of the operation. There are no absolute contraindications to performing an anastomosis, but there are several relative contraindications. Reasons to avoid restoring
intestinal continuity during an elective colon resection include patient preference,
preoperative history of fecal incontinence, hemodynamic instability during the
M. G. Mutch (*)
Washington University School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Section of Colon and
Rectal Surgery, St. Louis, MO, USA
e-mail: mutchm@wustl.edu
© 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_18
271

272
surgery, poor tissue quality, or risk factors for anastomotic leak that make not performing anastomosis a prudent decision. These concepts highlight the importance
of surgeon decision-making during each individual operation. The utilization of a
diverting stoma is also an issue that impacts a surgeon’s decision to perform an
anastomosis, and this possibility should be discussed with the patient
preoperatively.
M. G. Mutch
Principles andQuality Benchmarks
The general principles of a healthy anastomosis are (1) ensuring adequate blood
supply, (2) utilization of healthy bowel, (3) adequate mobilization to avoid tension
on the anastomosis, and (4) assessment of the mechanical integrity of the anastomosis. An anastomosis can be created with handsewn, stapled, or compression techniques. Techniques for creating an anastomosis have evolved signicantly since the
advent of stapling devices. Staplers have increased the surgeon’s ability to preserve
the sphincter and avoid a permanent colostomy. This chapter will only cover stapled
anastomoses, but many of the types of anastomotic constructions are applicable to
handsewn anastomosis. Compression anastomoses will not be covered because
these techniques are not widely used.
Anastomotic leak is one of the most devastating complications for patients
undergoing restorative procedures. The causes of anastomotic leaks are multifactorial, and identication of clear and consistent risk factors has been difcult.
Unquestionably, however, surgeon decision-making and technique are paramount to
a successful reconstruction. General factors related to the risk of an anastomotic
leak include those associated with the patient, disease process, surgeon, and location of the anastomosis. A surgeon’s ability to predict an anastomotic leak is limited.
Several authors have attempted to develop predictive models for anastomotic leak
using such variables as comorbidities, operative events, and operative complexity
with marginal success [1]. Specic risk factors for anastomotic leak will be discussed below.
Preoperative Planning, Patient Work-Up, andOptimization
The majority of preoperative planning is centered on the disease process and the
extent of resection required to appropriately manage the patient. This is the time to
discuss the risks associated with the anastomosis and to understand the patient’s
bowel function, continence, overall functional status, and their associated comorbidities. It is also prudent to discuss the various situations in which a temporary
diverting ileostomy or colostomy may be required. If there is a reasonable likelihood that the patient will leave the operating room with a stoma, it is imperative to
have the patient see an enterostomal therapist for education and marking prior to the
day of surgery.

18 Laparoscopic Left andSigmoid Colectomy: Options forColonic andColorectal…
273
Operative Setup
Once the colon has been mobilized, the decision for resection, extraction, and anastomosis must be made. The choices for resection include intracorporeal division of
the colon and rectum with endoscopic staplers, intracorporeal division of the rectum
with exteriorization, and open division of the proximal colon or exteriorization of
the colon with extracorporeal division of both ends of the bowel. The approach is
really a matter of surgeon preference as long as the principles of the resection can
be maintained. Intracorporeal division of the bowel allows for the smallest extraction site and allows for the extraction site to be off the midline, whereas extracorporeal division typically requires the extraction site to be in the midline, suprapubic
position so that the rectum may be divided in an open fashion.
Laparoscopic division of the rectum can be challenging because of the depth of
the pelvic, port placement, and limitations of the endoscopic staplers. Ideally, the
rectum is divided at a right angle with a single ring of the stapler, but that is not
always possible. It is recommended to use an articulating endoscopic stapler, and
the length of stapler is predicated on the size of the pelvis. Given the relative thickness of the rectum, a thicker load stapler may be preferred. Dividing the rectum
below the peritoneal reection becomes much more difcult because of the challenge to get the stapler across it at a right angle. As a result, multiple ring may be
required. Some surgeons may use a shorter stapler and utilize two staple rings to
divide the rectum. It is important to keep in mind that the risk of anastomotic leak
increases when three or more staple rings are needed to divide the rectum [2]. A
suprapubic port may be a good alternative to allow for stapling the rectum in an
anterior to posterior fashion at the pelvic oor. Alternatively, a suprapubic midline
or Pfannenstiel incision can be utilized to divide the rectum with an open stapler. In
either case, the associated mesorectum is divided at a right angle to the rectum with
the energy source of choice.
The colon can be extracted and exteriorized via an upper or lower midline incision, Pfannenstiel incision, or a left lower quadrant muscle-splitting incision. The
use of an upper midline and left lower quadrant incision requires the incision to be
closed and the anastomosis to be performed laparoscopically. With a lower midline
or Pfannenstiel incision, the anastomosis can be carried out either laparoscopically
or open under direct visualization. Once the incision is made, a wound protector
should be used as there are clear data supporting a decreased incidence of wound
infections and to protect the wound from tumor implantation for cancer cases [3].
Wound protectors can be capped or twisted and clamped in order to reestablish
pneumoperitoneum.
Whether the colon and its mesentery are divided intracorporeally or extracorporeally, the proximal colon must be assessed for adequate perfusion. This can be
accomplished in several ways such as ashing the marginal artery, observing bright
red blood from the cut edge of the colon, or utilization of indocyanine green uorescence imaging. The technique used for the anastomosis will dictate how the colon is
divided and prepared.

274
M. G. Mutch
Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
End toEnd Anastomosis
An end to end anastomosis is the most common type of anastomosis between the
colon and rectum. This typically is described as a double-stapled technique as the
rectum is divided with a linear stapler and the end to end anastomosis is created
across this staple line using a circular stapler. To prepare the proximal colon, a purse
string is placed to secure the stapling anvil. A purse string can be placed with either
a disposable device, a reusable device using a 2-0 monolament suture on a Keith
needle, or as a handsewn purse string. The key concept is to ensure the edges of the
colotomy are everted and that the purse string is complete and secure. For a handsewn purse string, a running Connell stitch is best to ensure these principles are met
(Fig.18.1a, b). It allows for full-thickness bites circumferentially around the lumen
of the proximal colon. When using a disposable device, be aware that the staples
securing the purse string only grab the serosa with or without the underlying muscularis, so it is very important to ensure the mucosal edges are everted to adequately
secure the entire bowel edge around the post of the anvil when cinching the purse
string down. It is up to the surgeon to “clean” tissue from the colon at the level of the
anvil. The goal of this would be to minimize fat within the staple line, to identify
diverticula that could be caught in the circular staple line, and to ensure a complete
purse string. If a diverticulum is identied that may fall within the staple line, it is
drawn up into the anvil with a stitch. A full-thickness stitch is placed just proximal to
the diverticulum, and the suture is then tied around the post of the anvil. This maneuver allows the diverticula to be drawn up and out of the staple line. This is important
as these colonic diverticula are false diverticula, so they only contain mucosa and
serosa. After the anvil has been securely placed, the anastomosis can be performed.
It is at the surgeon’s discretion whether to perform the anastomosis under pneumoperitoneum or open via the laparotomy incision. For the laparoscopic approach,
the proximal colon and anvil are returned to the peritoneal cavity, and the fascia is
denitively closed. Alternatively, with an extraction site in the suprapubic position,
the creation of the anastomosis can be performed under direct visualization. The
advantage of this open approach is the ease of management of any difculties or
complications associated with the anastomosis – these will be discussed in the
Pitfalls and Troubleshooting section.
With either approach, the end to end anastomosis (EEA) stapling cartridge is
passed transanally to the top of the rectal stump. The at end of the stapler should be
advanced so that the top of the rectal stump is splayed out at across the device
(Fig. 18.2a). This is to ensure that there are no rectal folds or redundant mucosa
incorporated into the staple line. Once it is ush at the top of the rectal stump, the
spike of the stapler should be deployed (Fig.18.2b). The spike can pass through the
rectal wall either just posterior or anterior to the staple line or even directly through
the staple line. With the spike fully deployed, the anvil should be joined with the
spike after conrming the proximal colon is properly oriented and not twisted. The
anvil is then cinched down under direct visualization to ensure there is no extra tissue
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
