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
17 Laparoscopic Left andSigmoid Colectomy forMalignant 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 identication 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 conuence of the taenia coli. The specimen can be extracted through an extended off midline lower-quadrant trocar site (such as the 12mm 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 5cm 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, andSpecial Considerations
Difficulty Identifying theUreter
The left ureter should be clearly identied 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 identication, these
17 Laparoscopic Left andSigmoid Colectomy forMalignant 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 withReach
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 toConsider Conversion
The surgeon should consider conversion to a different approach if there is failure to progress over a signicant period of time. Furthermore, excessive bleeding, unex­pected organ injury, signicant amount of adhesions, and difculty 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 difculties 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. 5year
(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 bene­ts relative to open surgery and to be as safe and efcacious 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 [57]. 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 benets 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 Table17.1.
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 [2228]. 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 andSigmoid Colectomy forMalignant Disease
269
including a proximal and distal margin of >5cm 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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.Dening 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 andSigmoid Colectomy: Options forColonic
18
andColorectal Reconstruction
MatthewG.Mutch
Introduction andRationale
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 andContraindications
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 specic 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 andQuality 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 signicantly 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 identication of clear and consistent risk factors has been difcult. 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]. Specic risk factors for anastomotic leak will be dis­cussed below.
Preoperative Planning, Patient Work-Up, andOptimization
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 andSigmoid Colectomy: Options forColonic andColorectal…
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 reection becomes much more difcult 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 toEnd 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 monolament 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 identied 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 denitively 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 difculties 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 conrming 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