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_1170_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
09.09.2026
Размер:
18 Мб
Скачать
14
83. Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Pique JM, Delgado S, Campo E, Bordas JM, Taura P, Grande L, Fuster J, Pacheco JL, et al. Short- term outcome analysis of a randomized study comparing laparoscopic vs open colectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc. 1995;9:1101–5.
84. Young-Fadok TM, HallLong K, McConnell EJ, Gomez RG, Cabanela RL. Advantages of laparoscopic resection for ileocolic Crohn’s disease. Improved outcomes and reduced costs. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:450–4.
85. van Bree SH, Vlug MS, Bemelman WA, Hollmann MW, Ubbink DT, Zwinderman AH, de Jonge WJ, Snoek SA, Bolhuis K, van der Zanden E, The FO, Bennink RJ, Boeckxstaens GE. Faster recovery of gastrointestinal transit after laparoscopy and fast-track care in patients undergoing colonic surgery. Gastroenterology. 2011;141:872–80. e1–4.
86. Delaney CP, Marcello PW, Sonoda T, Wise P, Bauer J, Techner L. Gastrointestinal recovery after laparoscopic colectomy: results of a prospective, observational, multicenter study. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:653–61.
87. Stein S, Delaney C. Postoperative management. In: Beck D, Roberts P, Saclarides T, Senagore A, Stamos M, Wexner S, editors. The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery. 2nd ed. New York City: Springer; 2011. p. 137–49.
88. Patel S, Lutz JM, Panchagnula U, Bansal S. Anesthesia and periop­erative management of colorectal surgical patients – a clinical review (Part 1). J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2012;28: 162–71.
89. Marret E, Remy C, Bonnet F. Meta-analysis of epidural analgesia versus parenteral opioid analgesia after colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2007;94:665–73.
90. Werawatganon T, Charuluxanun S. Patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia for pain after intra-abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(25):CD004088.
91. Liu SS, Carpenter RL, Mackey DC, Thirlby RC, Rupp SM, Shine TS, Feinglass NG, Metzger PP, Fulmer JT, Smith SL. Effects of perioperative analgesic technique on rate of recovery after colon surgery. Anesthesiology. 1995;83:757–65.
92. Scheinin B, Asantila R, Orko R. The effect of bupivacaine and mor­phine on pain and bowel function after colonic surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1987;31:161–4.
93. Gorissen KJ, Benning D, Berghmans T, Snoeijs MG, Sosef MN, Hulsewe KW, Luyer MD. Risk of anastomotic leakage with non­steroidal anti-infl ammatory drugs in colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2012;99:721–7.
94. Chen JY, Ko TL, Wen YR, Wu SC, Chou YH, Yien HW, Kuo CD. Opioid-sparing effects of ketorolac and its correlation with the recovery of postoperative bowel function in colorectal surgery patients: a prospective randomized double-blinded study. Clin J Pain. 2009;25:485–9.
95. Schlachta CM, Burpee SE, Fernandez C, Chan B, Mamazza J, Poulin EC. Optimizing recovery after laparoscopic colon surgery (ORAL-CS): effect of intravenous ketorolac on length of hospital stay. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:2212–9.
96. Wininger SJ, Miller H, Minkowitz HS, Royal MA, Ang RY, Breitmeyer JB, Singla NK. A randomized, double-blind, placebo­controlled, multicenter, repeat-dose study of two intravenous acet­aminophen dosing regimens for the treatment of pain after abdominal laparoscopic surgery. Clin Ther. 2010;32:2348–69.
97. Candiotti KA, Bergese SD, Viscusi ER, Singla SK, Royal MA, Singla NK. Safety of multiple-dose intravenous acetaminophen in adult inpatients. Pain Med. 2010;11:1841–8.
98. Cohen SM. Extended pain relief trial utilizing infi ltration of Exparel((R)), a long-acting multivesicular liposome formulation of bupivacaine: a Phase IV health economic trial in adult patients undergoing open colectomy. J Pain Res. 2012;5:567–72.
99. Hall JC, Tarala RA, Tapper J, Hall JL. Prevention of respiratory complications after abdominal surgery: a randomised clinical trial. BMJ. 1996;312:148–52; discussion 52–3.
100. Milsom JW, Bohm B, Hammerhofer KA, Fazio V, Steiger E, Elson P. A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a pre­liminary report. J Am Coll Surg. 1998;187:46–54; discussion 54–5.
101. Schwenk W, Bohm B, Witt C, Junghans T, Grundel K, Muller JM. Pulmonary function following laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resection: a randomized controlled evaluation. Arch Surg. 1999;134:6–12; discussion 3.
102. Vignali A, Braga M, Zuliani W, Frasson M, Radaelli G, Di Carlo V. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery modifi es risk factors for post­operative morbidity. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:1686–93.
103. Guller U, Jain N, Hervey S, Purves H, Pietrobon R. Laparoscopic vs open colectomy: outcomes comparison based on large nation­wide databases. Arch Surg. 2003;138:1179–86.
104. Restrepo RD, Wettstein R, Wittnebel L, Tracy M. Incentive spi­rometry. Respir Care. 2011;56:1600–4.
105. Carvalho CR, Paisani DM, Lunardi AC. Incentive spirometry in major surgeries: a systematic review. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2011;15:343–50.
106. Westwood K, Griffi n M, Roberts K, Williams M, Yoong K, Digger T. Incentive spirometry decreases respiratory complications fol­lowing major abdominal surgery. Surgeon. 2007;5:339–42.
107. Kanat F, Golcuk A, Teke T, Golcuk M. Risk factors for postopera­tive pulmonary complications in upper abdominal surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77:135–41.
108. Canet J, Mazo V. Postoperative pulmonary complications. Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76:138–43.
109. Brieger GH. Early ambulation. A study in the history of surgery. Ann Surg. 1983;197:443–9.
110. Leithauser DJ, Saraf L, Smyka S, Sheridan M. Prevention of embolic complications from venous thrombosis after surgery; standardized regimen of early ambulation. J Am Med Assoc. 1951;147:300–3.
111. Leithauser DJ, Gregory L, Miller SM. Immediate ambulation after extensive surgery. Am J Nurs. 1966;66:2207–8.
112. Lee TG, Kang SB, Kim DW, Hong S, Heo SC, Park KJ. Comparison of early mobilization and diet rehabilitation program with conven­tional care after laparoscopic colon surgery: a prospective ran­domized controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:21–8.
113. Maessen J, Dejong CH, Hausel J, Nygren J, Lassen K, Andersen J, Kessels AG, Revhaug A, Kehlet H, Ljungqvist O, Fearon KC, von Meyenfeldt MF. A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Br J Surg. 2007;94:224–31.
114. Lin JH, Whelan RL, Sakellarios NE, Cekic V, Forde KA, Bank J, Feingold DL. Prospective study of ambulation after open and laparoscopic colorectal resection. Surg Innov. 2009;16: 16–20.
115. Geerts WH, Bergqvist D, Pineo GF, Heit JA, Samama CM, Lassen MR, Colwell CW. Prevention of venous thromboembolism: American college of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th edition). Chest. 2008;133:381S–453.
116. Gangireddy C, Rectenwald JR, Upchurch GR, Wakefi eld TW, Khuri S, Henderson WG, Henke PK. Risk factors and clinical impact of postoperative symptomatic venous thromboembolism. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:335–41; discussion 41–2.
117. Iversen LH, Thorlacius-Ussing O. Relationship of coagulation test abnormalities to tumour burden and postoperative DVT in resected colorectal cancer. Thromb Haemost. 2002;87:402–8.
118. Solem CA, Loftus EV, Tremaine WJ, Sandborn WJ. Venous thromboembolism in infl ammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:97–101.
D.J. Maron and L.M. Haubert
15
119. Torngren S, Rieger A. Prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis in colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 1982;25:563–6.
120. Shapiro R, Vogel JD, Kiran RP. Risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: an additional benefi t of the minimally invasive approach? Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:1496–502.
121. Practice parameters for the prevention of venous thromboembo­lism. The standards task force of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:1037–47.
122. Scarpa M, Pilon F, Pengo V, Romanato G, Ruffolo C, Erroi F, Elisa B, Frego M, Ossi E, Manzato E, Angriman I. Deep venous thrombosis after surgery for infl ammatory bowel disease: is stan­dard dose low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis enough? World J Surg. 2010;34:1629–36.
123. Burke JP. Infection control – a problem for patient safety. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:651–6.
124. Walz JM, Paterson CA, Seligowski JM, Heard SO. Surgical site infection following bowel surgery: a retrospective analysis of 1446 patients. Arch Surg. 2006;141:1014–8; discussion 8.
125. Berenguer CM, Ochsner Jr MG, Lord SA, Senkowski CK. Improving surgical site infections: using national surgical quality improvement program data to institute surgical care improvement project protocols in improving surgical outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:737–41, 41–3.
126. Awad SS. Adherence to surgical care improvement project mea­sures and post-operative surgical site infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2012;13:234–7.
127. Boni L, Benevento A, Rovera F, Dionigi G, Di Giuseppe M, Bertoglio C, Dionigi R. Infective complications in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2006;7 Suppl 2:S109–11.
128. Nasirkhan MU, Abir F, Longo W, Kozol R. Anastomotic disrup­tion after large bowel resection. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:2497–504.
129. Boccola MA, Buettner PG, Rozen WM, Siu SK, Stevenson AR, Stitz R, Ho YH. Risk factors and outcomes for anastomotic leak­age in colorectal surgery: a single-institution analysis of 1576 patients. World J Surg. 2011;35:186–95.
130. Fouda E, El Nakeeb A, Magdy A, Hammad EA, Othman G, Farid M. Early detection of anastomotic leakage after elective low ante­rior resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:137–44.
131. Milsom JW, de Oliveira Jr O, Trencheva KI, Pandey S, Lee SW, Sonoda T. Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing curative laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1215–22.
132. Alves A, Panis Y, Trancart D, Regimbeau JM, Pocard M, Valleur P. Factors associated with clinically signifi cant anastomotic leak­age after large bowel resection: multivariate analysis of 707 patients. World J Surg. 2002;26:499–502.
133. Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Bearn P, Heald RJ. Leakage from sta­pled low anastomosis after total mesorectal excision for carci­noma of the rectum. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1224–6.
134. Buchs NC, Gervaz P, Secic M, Bucher P, Mugnier-Konrad B, Morel P. Incidence, consequences, and risk factors for anasto­motic dehiscence after colorectal surgery: a prospective monocen­tric study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008;23:265–70.
135. Volk A, Kersting S, Held HC, Saeger HD. Risk factors for morbid­ity and mortality after single-layer continuous suture for ileoco­lonic anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:321–7.
136. Thornton M, Joshi H, Vimalachandran C, Heath R, Carter P, Gur U, Rooney P. Management and outcome of colorectal anastomotic leaks. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:313–20.
137. Kang CY, Halabi WJ, Chaudhry OO, Nguyen V, Pigazzi A, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:65–71.
138. Trencheva K, Morrissey KP, Wells M, Mancuso CA, Lee SW, Sonoda T, Michelassi F, Charlson ME, Milsom JW. Identifying important predictors for anastomotic leak after colon and rectal resection: pro­spective study on 616 Patients. Ann Surg. 2013;257:108.
139. Dietz D. Postoperative complications. In: Beck D, Roberts P, Saclarides T, Senagore A, Stamos M, Wexner S, editors. The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery. 2nd ed. New York City: Springer; 2011. p. 157–71.
140. Ricciardi R, Roberts PL, Marcello PW, Hall JF, Read TE, Schoetz DJ. Anastomotic leak testing after colorectal resection: what are the data? Arch Surg. 2009;144:407–11; discussion 11–2.
141. Neutzling CB, Lustosa SA, Proenca IM, da Silva EM, Matos D. Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(2):CD003144.
142. Malik AH, East JE, Buchanan GN, Kennedy RH. Endoscopic hae­mostasis of staple-line haemorrhage following colorectal resec­tion. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10:616–8.
143. Atabek U, Pello MJ, Spence RK, Alexander JB, Camishion RC. Arterial vasopressin for control of bleeding from a stapled intestinal anastomosis. Report of two cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 1992;35:1180–2.
144. Phitayakorn R, Delaney CP, Reynolds HL, Champagne BJ, Heriot AG, Neary P, Senagore AJ. Standardized algorithms for manage­ment of anastomotic leaks and related abdominal and pelvic abscesses after colorectal surgery. World J Surg. 2008;32:1147–56.
145. Kaur P, Karandikar SS, Roy-Choudhury S. Accuracy of multide­tector CT in detecting anastomotic leaks following stapled left­sided colonic anastomosis. Clin Radiol. 2014;69:59–62.
146. Khurrum Baig M, Hua Zhao R, Batista O, Uriburu JP, Singh JJ, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD. Percutaneous postoperative intra-abdominal abscess drainage after elective colorectal surgery. Tech Coloproctol. 2002;6:159–64.
147. Kumar RR, Kim JT, Haukoos JS, Macias LH, Dixon MR, Stamos MJ, Konyalian VR. Factors affecting the successful management of intra-abdominal abscesses with antibiotics and the need for per­cutaneous drainage. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:183–9.
148. Ryan MD, Wattchow D, Walker M, Hakendorf P. Adhesional small bowel obstruction after colorectal surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74:1010–2.
149. Parikh JA, Ko CY, Maggard MA, Zingmond DS. What is the rate of small bowel obstruction after colectomy? Am Surg. 2008;74:1001–5.
150. Duepree HJ, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW. Does means of access affect the incidence of small bowel obstruction and ventral hernia after bowel resection? Laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197:177–81.
151. Alvarez-Downing M, Klaassen Z, Orringer R, Gilder M, Tarantino D, Chamberlain RS. Incidence of small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic and open colon resection. Am J Surg. 2011;201:411– 5; discussion 5.
2 Preoperative Planning and Postoperative Care in Minimal Invasive Colorectal Surgery
17
O. Bardakcioglu (ed.), Advanced Techniques in Minimally Invasive and Robotic Colorectal Surgery, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4899-7531-7_3, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Introduction

The use of minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopic and robotic) is expanding rapidly in the fi eld of colorectal sur­gery [
1 ]. An increasing percentage of colorectal surgeons is
incorporating minimally invasive techniques into their prac­tices. Additionally, training in laparoscopy has become a required component of colon and rectal surgery fellowships throughout the nation.
Minimally invasive techniques have demonstrated tangi­ble benefi ts to patients in terms of diminished postoperative pain, reduction in postoperative ileus, earlier tolerance of a diet, diminished hospital stay, earlier return to normal activi­ties, and improved cosmesis [ 26 ]. These benefi ts, however, are offset partially by the presence of an established learning curve (>20 cases) ascribed to obtaining profi ciency in mini­mally invasive colon and rectal surgery [ 2 , 5 ]. Additionally, laparoscopic and robotic operations are associated with increased operating room times and requisite operating room costs. These disadvantages are most evident early in a sur­geon’s minimally invasive practice, namely, until one has attained effi ciency and an adequate case volume in laparo­scopic and robotic surgery to employ minimally invasive techniques profi ciently. Despite these drawbacks, minimally invasive colon and rectal operations have been shown to be cost-effective and clearly offer numerous patient-centered benefi ts when compared to open operations [ 710 ].
Central to attaining profi ciency in minimally invasive colon and rectum surgery is obtaining an understanding of the proper operating room setup, necessary specialized equipment and instrumentation, as well as a basic under­standing of patient positioning for these operations. As such, these topics form the basis of this chapter.

Equipment

Specifi c surgical equipment is required for performance of laparoscopic and robotic operations. Though hospitals regu­larly perform common laparoscopic cases such as appendec­tomy and cholecystectomy, and most up-to-date operating rooms are equipped with laparoscopic instruments, some specialized instruments will facilitate laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery. Instrumentation will be reviewed in detail below.

Laparoscopes, Cameras, Light Source, and Monitor

The ability to obtain adequate visualization and lighting within the peritoneal cavity is of paramount importance in performing minimally invasive surgery. A wide array of lap­aroscopes of different diameters and viewing angles are available specifi cally for this purpose. In practice, 5 and 10 mm, oblique-viewing (30°) laparoscopes are used most often. Flexible-tip laparoscopes, which provide the operator with the ability to view intraperitoneal contents at different angles without having to rotate or move the shaft of the lapa­roscope, are also available and can facilitate laparoscopic operations (Fig. 3.1 ). Traditionally, a rod-lense style laparo- scope is attached at its base to a video camera head. The video camera head (either analog or high defi nition) is con­nected to a camera control terminal, which then projects the video image to monitors present within the operating room. In many operating rooms, the available monitors are fl at screen, LCD monitors. Increasingly, high-defi nition cameras and monitors are becoming commonplace, in turn, signifi ­cantly improving picture quality for the surgeon. As these HD cameras and monitors provide a superior view, they should be used whenever available.
A xenon (300 W) light source is connected via the rod­lens to project adequate lighting onto the operative fi eld (Fig.
3.2 ). Alternatively, some laparoscopes have integrated

Operating Room Setup and General Techniques in Minimal Invasive Colorectal Surgery

Saif A. Ghole and Steven Mills
3
S. A. Ghole , MD (*) • S. Mills , MD Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery , UC Irvine Medical Center , Orange , CA , USA e-mail:
saif.a.ghole@gmail.com
18
light sources. The light is carried to the rod-lens via fi ber­optic cables. When passing the fi ber-optic light source cable on and off the operative fi eld, care must be taken to avoid damaging the relatively fragile fi ber-optic cables, as damage to these will result in diminished light output and therefore an inferior image. It is recommended that the camera control equipment be connected to digital recording and storage devices to permit documentation, to promote teaching, and for use of the video in research endeavors.
Insuffl ator
An electronically controlled carbon dioxide insuffl ator is used to establish and maintain pneumoperitoneum (Fig.
3.3 ).
This system consists of the following: an intra-abdominal pressure display, an adjustable pressure selector, and digital
ab
Fig. 3.1 Laparoscopes of different sizes and viewing angles facilitate visualization. ( a ) A 10-mm 30° angled tip laparoscope. ( b ) A 5-mm fl exible- tip laparoscope
Fig. 3.2 Standard light sources are shown
Fig. 3.3 A standard insuffl ator permitting pneumoperitoneum for lap-
aroscopic and robotic operations is shown
S.A. Ghole and S. Mills
19
fl ow and volume displays. Once pneumoperitoneum is ini­tially established, high fl ow settings (20–40 L/min) are gen­erally used to maintain the pneumoperitoneum. The system self-regulates to maintain the desired pneumoperitoneum.

Instruments

A number of instruments have been designed specifi cally for use during laparoscopy. Many come in both reusable and dis­posable forms. The basic instruments that we advise having available for minimally invasive operations are the following: Suction - irrigation device – this device allows for rapid
intraoperative aspiration of blood, fl uid, spilled bowel contents, etc., and/or irrigation of the same should the need arise.
Laparoscopic warmers – this allows one to keep the rod-lens
device warmed to 37–40 centigrade in a saline bath to pre­vent fogging upon insertion into the warm, humid con­fi nes of the peritoneum. Having an antifog solution (Dr. Fog, Aspen Surgical MI, USA; Fred, Cardinal Health, OH, USA) available on the operative fi eld can also facili­tate rapid lens de-fogging. Newer laparoscopes, which have antifog features built into the rod-lens system, are available which eliminate the need for these baths.
Trocars – a variety of 5-, 10-, and 12- mm trocars are avail-
able. While the number and type depend on surgeon’s preference as well as the particular case being performed, we generally recommend having several 5- and 12-mm trocars readily available. Blunt tip trocars should be used to decrease the risk of injury to either the intestines or the abdominal wall musculature. The older, bladed trocars should be avoided [ 11 ].
Graspers (bowel and heavy graspers) – graspers are avail-
able in various sizes (5 mm and 10 mm), lengths (31 cm is standard), and shapes. Generally atraumatic (bowel), toothed, Maryland, Babcock, and right-angle graspers are the most useful for performing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Scissors – scissors permit both blunt and sharp dissection.
Additionally, most can be connected to monopolar cau­tery, permitting improved hemostasis during dissection.
Clip applier and Endoloop – having a laparoscopic clip
applier and Endoloop readily available in order to gain control of blood vessels prior to transection or in the emergent setting when rapid control of bleeding is desired is recommended.
Staplers – a variety of disposable laparoscopic staplers have
been designed and are available in order to facilitate bowel and vessel transection as well as bowel anastomo­ses. Depending on the case, linear anastomotic staplers or circular end-to-end anastomosis staplers may be needed.
Energy sources – monopolar and bipolar sources of energy,
as well as thermal dissecting devices, are available and are an important complement to the armamentarium of a laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Electrosurgery as well as LigaSure (Covidien, CO, USA), Enseal (Ethicon Endosurgery, OH, USA), and Harmonic scalpel (Ethicon Endosurgery, OH, USA) style devices greatly facilitate bowel surgery, specifi cally division of blood vessels within the mesentery and omentum.

Hand-Assist Techniques

Another technique for minimal access surgery is via a hand­assist technique. As with straight laparoscopy, laparoscopic instruments are used as well as a laparoscopic camera. A hand-assist port (GelPort Laparoscopic System, Applied Medical, USA) is inserted through a 6–7 cm abdominal wall incision through which the surgeon can pass one hand. The surgeon’s hand is then used to retract, dissect, etc. as needed.

Single-Port Techniques

A single-incision technique is also available wherein a 2–3 cm incision is made through the abdominal wall and a single-port device is inserted (GelPoint, Applied Medical, USA; TriPort and QuadPort, Olympus, Japan; SILS Port, Covidien, USA; Single Site Laparoscopic Access System, Ethicon Endosurgery, USA). All ports/instruments as well as the camera are inserted through this port and the procedure is completed without further incisions.

Robotic Techniques

Most robotic operations are hybrid techniques that involve the concurrent use of laparoscopic and robotic instruments. As such, availability of the laparoscopic instruments described in the prior section is essential to robotic cases. In addition to this, however, there are several robot-specifi c technologies which merit review.
The da Vinci robotic surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, USA) is the only robotic system currently avail­able for surgical use. The system consists of a three- or four­armed surgical robot that docks into position at a desired location adjacent to the patient. The initial setup requires obtaining intraperitoneal access as would be done for laparo­scopic surgery. Thereafter, a 12-mm endoscopic port is inserted, which permits initial laparoscope and later robotic laparoscope placement. Three reusable robotic instrument ports (8 mm) are then placed intraperitoneally. Each of the ports is confi gured so that it can be docked to the robotic arms.
3 Operating Room Setup and General Techniques in Minimal Invasive Colorectal Surgery
20
The robotic camera contains two separate video chips to allow for a binocular image. It is introduced through the 12-mm tro­car and captures three-dimensional video of the intraperito­neal contents. These images are then projected to a control console placed some distance away from the patient. The sur­geon sits at the console and is able to remotely control the camera and the robotic instruments connected to the arms of the da Vinci robot. An assistant (who is scrubbed in) is required at the patient’s bedside to exchange robotic instruments when necessary and to assist with retraction and suction if needed. The robotic instrument attachments most commonly used are a grasper, shears attached to monopolar cautery, and a bipolar grasper. The main advantages of robotic surgery over laparo­scopic surgery are felt to be (1) the superior three-dimensional images that can be obtained of the intraperitoneal contents using the robotic endoscope and (2) the freedom of movement and motion that the robotic instruments allow for. The later is particularly useful when performing complex tasks (i.e., dis­secting or suturing) within anatomically confi ned space. An ongoing randomized trial comparing laparoscopic and robotic surgery for rectal cancer will shed more light on the compari­son of the two techniques [
12 ].

General OR Setup for Minimal Invasive Colorectal Surgery

Figure 3.4 demonstrates a typical operating room setup for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. When available, ceiling­mounted booms help keep the various cords organized. We recommend that all cords and tubing enter and exit the sterile fi eld from the same position whenever feasible. For example, for a laparoscopic low anterior resection, all tubes and cords could exit from the left side of the patient above the operative fi eld. Figure 3.5 demonstrates a typical operating room setup for robotic colorectal surgery.

Patient Positioning

In the following section we will discuss general patient posi­tioning for the most common laparoscopic and robotic oper­ations. We will defer discussion of port placement to subsequent chapters of this textbook, which will elaborate upon this topic in detail.
Regardless of the type of operation that is to be performed, a few principles should be kept in mind. First, the patient must be positioned is a manner that precludes pressure or nerve-related injury. All pressure points must be adequately padded and cushioned. Second, the patients should be secured to the operating table and prevented from sliding off the table. This is particularly important in laparoscopic and robotic surgery, where the surgeon may need to incline, turn
and recline the patient at extreme angles to facilitate the operation. At our institution we use the Pink Pad – Pigazzi Patient Positioning System (Xodus Medical, PA, USA) – which consists of a single use pink foam pad placed directly on top of the operating table, disposable liftsheet, and body strap – to achieve this objective (Fig. 3.6 ). Alternatively, the patient can be positioned on a beanbag secured to the operat­ing room table or a gel pad without liftsheets and shoulder pads. Third, all patients must have appropriate IV lines, car­diac monitoring leads, and catheters (including a urinary catheter permitting monitoring of intraoperative urine out­put) positioned in such a manner that they do not obstruct the surgeon’s operative fi eld. Finally, appropriate prophylaxis (IV antibiotics, sequential compression devices, and/or
Anesthesia
Light source Insufflator, energy sources
Suction
Colonoscopy cart
Monitor
Instrument table
Scrub nurse
Surgeon
Assistant
Patient
Fig. 3.4 Operating room setup for laparoscopic colorectal surgery
Anesthesia
Light source Insufflator, energy sources
Suction
Colonoscopy cart
Monitor
Monitor
Instrument table
Scrub nurse
SurgeonConsole
Assistant
Patient
Robot
Fig. 3.5 Operating room setup for robotic colorectal surgery
S.A. Ghole and S. Mills
21
chemical deep venous prophylaxis) must be instituted prior to initiation of the operation and continued/repeated as needed during the operation.
Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy
For laparoscopic right colectomies, the patient should be positioned in a supine position with at least the left arm tucked (as both the surgeon and assistant will be standing to the patient’s left side) (Fig.
3.7 ). A chest strap placed supe-
rior to the xiphoid process and leg strap placed across the femurs should be applied to secure the patient to the bed for the ensuing operation. The urinary catheter may be passed off over the patient’s left leg. The patient’s abdomen and pel­vis should be prepped from the xiphoid process to the pubic
symphysis and from the right posterior axillary line to the left posterior axillary line. An alternative positioning can be supine with the legs in low lithotomy using padded stirrups such as Yellofi n Stirrups (Allen Medical Systems, MA, USA). This will allow the surgeon or assistant to stand between the legs if desired and will allow performing an intraoperative colonoscopy if necessary.
Laparoscopic Total Abdominal Colectomy, Left Hemicolectomy, Sigmoidectomy, Low Anterior Resection, and Abdominoperineal Resection
For laparoscopic total abdominal colectomies, sigmoidecto­mies, low anterior resections, or abdominoperineal resec­tions, the patient should be positioned in a modifi ed lithotomy position with both arms tucked (Fig.
3.8 ). This
provides the surgeon and assistant with rapid access to either side of the patient’s body, as well as access to the perineum should colonoscopy, fl exible sigmoidoscopy, or proctoscopy be required. Additionally, in the case of sig­moid colectomy and low anterior resections, access to the perineum permits passage of a circular stapler through the anus or for a hand-sewn anastomosis if needed. A chest strap or heavy tape placed superior to the xiphoid process should be applied to secure the patient to the bed for the ensuing operation. The urinary catheter may be passed off under the patient’s left leg. The patient’s abdomen and pel­vis should be prepped from the xiphoid process to the pubic symphysis and from the right posterior axillary line to the left posterior axillary line.
Robotic Right Hemicolectomy
Though not a commonly performed procedure, for a robotic right hemicolectomies, the patient should be positioned in a supine position with both arms tucked (Fig.
3.7 ). A chest
strap placed superior to the xiphoid process and leg strap placed across the femurs should be applied to secure the patient to the bed for the ensuing operation (Box
3.1 ). The
urinary catheter may be passed off over the patient’s left leg. The patient’s abdomen and pelvis should be prepped from the xiphoid process to the pubic symphysis and from the right posterior axillary line to the left posterior axillary line. The robot will be docked to the right of the patient at an oblique angle.
Fig. 3.6 Pink pad – Pigazzi patient positioning system
Fig. 3.7 Patient positioning for a laparoscopic or robotic right
colectomy
Box 3.1 Tip
A slight hyperextension of the legs will prevent occa­sional impairment of robotic arm mobility.
3 Operating Room Setup and General Techniques in Minimal Invasive Colorectal Surgery
22
Robotic Low Anterior Resection, Proctectomy
For robotic low anterior resections and proctectomy, the patient should be positioned in a modifi ed lithotomy position with both arms tucked (Fig. 3.8 ; Box 3.2 ). A chest strap placed superior to the xiphoid process should be applied to secure the patient to the bed for the ensuing operation. The urinary catheter may be passed off under the patient’s left leg. The patient’s abdomen and pelvis should be prepped from the xiphoid process to the pubic symphysis and from the right posterior axillary line to the left posterior axillary line. The robot can be docked from the left side of the patient at an oblique angle (over the hip) or from between the legs.

Obtaining Intraperitoneal Access

There are three principle ways in which intraperitoneal access can be obtained.
Veress Needle
This technique involves the placement of a Veress needle through a small abdominal skin incision, directly through the underlying subcutaneous fat, fascia, and peritoneum into the
abdominal cavity. The Veress needle safety mechanism con­sists of a blunt-tipped spring-loaded inner stylet, which retracts when it meets resistance, revealing a beveled needle (Fig. 3.9 ). Once the needle is passed through the abdominal wall into the peritoneal cavity, the blunt inner stylet rede­ploys. The Veress needle is most often inserted periumbili­cally or in the patient’s left upper quadrant (i.e., at Palmer’s point). Needle placement can be confi rmed by a variety of means. An aspiration syringe with saline is attached to the end of the Veress needle permitting aspiration and ideally revealing only air. Next the saline within the syringe can be injected through the Veress needle to demonstrate free/unob­structed fl ow through the needle. Finally, the needle is attached to insuffl ation tubing to check the intraperitoneal pressure and pressure during insuffl ation. Normal intra­abdominal pressures tend to be very low (<5 mmHg). High pressures can indicate inappropriate needle position. Because the needle insertion is done blindly, there remains a fi nite chance of injury to adjacent viscera or blood vessels. For this reason, we advocate Veress needle insertion at Palmer’s point (just below the left costal margin) where the tenth rib tents the abdominal wall off of the underlying viscera, and, as such, injury to larger blood vessels (i.e., the inferior vena cava, aorta, and iliac vessels) and intestines can be avoided.
Hasson (Open) Access
The open (Hasson) technique for gaining intraperitoneal access has gained favor among those who desire direct visu­alization of the intraperitoneal contents prior to insertion of a trocar (Fig. 3.10 ). The open technique consists of incising the abdominal wall, visualizing the underlying fascia, grasping it up, and directly incising the fascia and underlying peritoneum
Fig. 3.8 Patient positioning for laparoscopic or robotic total abdominal colectomy, sigmoid colectomy, low anterior resection, and abdominoperi­neal resection
Box 3.2 Tip
Lower the left leg enough to avoid collision of the knee while docking the robotic arm from an oblique angle while the patient is in a Trendelenburg position with the left side up.
S.A. Ghole and S. Mills
23
to gain intraperitoneal access. Once the peritoneum is accessed, stay sutures are applied on the fascial layers on either side of the incision, and a 12-mm Hasson trocar is inserted into the peritoneum. Insuffl ation is performed through the Hasson trocar. While the open approach avoids vessel injury, there remains a risk of injury to any viscera that may be directly under the abdominal wall when the abdominal wall is incised. This is especially true during reoperations or operations in the setting of intraperitoneal adhesions. In the­ory, Hasson access can be obtained anywhere on the abdomen but is generally achieved in a periumbilical location.
Optical Access Trocars
An alternative technique for abdominal entry involves the use of optical access trocars (i.e., Optiview, Visiport), which are blunt see-through trocars (Fig. 3.11 ). After a small skin inci- sion is made on the abdominal wall at a desired location, the optical access trocar and zero-degree laparoscope, inserted through the top of the trocar, are advanced together through the abdominal wall. The layers of the abdominal wall are seen
to deform around the trocar as it is placed into the abdominal cavity. The endoscope provides direct visualization of the entry, theoretically minimizing unintended injury to intraperi­toneal contents. Optical port access to the peritoneum can be achieved anywhere on the abdominal wall.
A recent Cochrane database review suggested that open (Hasson) access resulted in signifi cantly reduced rates of failed intra-abdominal entry, extraperitoneal insuffl ation, and omental injury when compared to Veress needle entry. Interestingly, vascular and visceral injuries were not signifi ­cantly affected by method of entry [ 13 ].
Single Port and Hand Assist
Gaining access with either a single-assist or hand-assist device is relatively straightforward. The appropriate sized incision (dependent upon specifi c device used) is made in the skin and carried down through the layers of the abdominal wall with the same sized incision in the abdominal wall fas­cia. The peritoneum is opened and the device is inserted. The
Fig. 3.9 A standard Veress needle is shown
Fig. 3.10 A standard Hasson trocar is shown
Fig. 3.11 A standard optical access trocar is shown
3 Operating Room Setup and General Techniques in Minimal Invasive Colorectal Surgery
24
specifi c location of the device will depend upon the sur­geon’s preference and the procedure being performed.

Techniques for Port Closure

Two techniques are generally used for fascial closure of lapa­roscopic port sites.
Suture Closure of Fascia
The fascia can be closed primarily by approximating and clos­ing the fascial defect through the skin incision itself. In order to do this, toothed forceps are used to grasp the fascial edges and a primary fascial closure is performed with sutures placed in a simple or fi gure-of-eight fashion.
Fascial Closure Devices
Disposable and nondisposable fascial closure devices (e.g., the Carter-Thomason wound closure system) are available which allow for the primary closure of the fascial edges under direct laparoscopic visualization (Fig. 3.12 ). A transfascial suture is passed through a stab wound on either side of the fascial defect wound. This suture is then tied extracorporeally down through the skin incision to achieve fascial closure.

Summary

Immediate availability of specialty equipment and instru­mentation, standardized operating room setup and patient positioning, and individualized access and closure
techniques are the foundation of a successful minimal invasive colorectal procedure.

References

1. Kang CY, Halabi WJ, Luo R, Pigazzi A, Nguyen NT, Stamos
MJ. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a better look into the latest trends. Arch Surg. 2012;147(8):724–31.
2. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A compari-
son of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon can­cer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(20):2050–9.
3. Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J, Haglind E,
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.
4. Cummings LC, Delaney CP, Cooper GS. Laparoscopic versus open
colectomy for colon cancer in an older population: a cohort study. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:31.
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: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(21):3061–8.
6. Masoomi H, Buchberg B, Nguyen B, Tung V, Stamos MJ, Mills
S. Outcomes of laparoscopic versus open colectomy in elective sur­gery for diverticulitis. World J Surg. 2011;35(9):2143–8.
7. Alkhamesi NA, Martin J, Schlachta CM. Cost-effi ciency of laparo-
scopic versus open colon surgery in a tertiary care center. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(11):3597–604.
8. McKay GD, Morgan MJ, Wong SK, Gatenby AH, Fulham SB,
Ahmed KW, et al. Improved short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open resection for colon and rectal cancer in an area health service: a multicenter study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(1): 42–50.
9. Vaid S, Tucker J, Bell T, Grim R, Ahuja V. Cost analysis of laparo-
scopic versus open colectomy in patients with colon cancer: results from a large nationwide population database. Am Surg. 2012;78(6): 635–41.
10. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ,
et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(7):477–84.
11. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath
FA. Blunt versus bladed trocars in laparoscopic surgery: a system­atic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(7):2312–20.
12. Collinson FJ, Jayne DG, Pigazzi A, Tsang C, Barrie JM, Edlin R,
et al. An international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, con­trolled, unblinded, parallel-group trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27(2):233–41.
13. Ahmad G, O’Flynn H, Duffy JM, Phillips K, Watson A.
Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(2):CD006583.
Fig. 3.12 A Carter-Thomason fascial closure device is shown
S.A. Ghole and S. Mills