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_1369_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
11 Мб
Скачать
☆
126
E.P. Davila and C.H. Otero
pneumonia, which is an important cause of morbidity and mortality rates in the postoperative period in obese patients. It is desirable that the patient remains semi­sitting to improve intra-abdominal pressure during the immediate postoperative period, and oximetry must be used at least 24 h after the surgery.
Conclusion: More than two-thirds of adults are considered to be overweight or obese and more than one-third of adults are considered to be obese [19]; this condi­tion is associated with high rates of comorbidities, which can adversely affect surgi­cal outcomes.
Appropriate risk reduction strategies as a checklist and the participation of coor­dinate multispecialty clinical team who can lead the patient to a safe surgery, avoid complications and recovery success.
The advantages of laparoscopic colorectal surgery include reduction of pain, early return of bowel function, better respiratory function, and quicker return to normal activities and do not affect surgical safety or oncological security.

References

1. Sturm R. Increases in clinically severe obesity in the United States, 1986–2000. Arch Intern
Med. 2003;163:2146–8.
2. Berkalp B, Cesur V, Corapcioglu D, et al. Obesity and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction.
Int J Cardiol. 1995;52:23–6.
3. Doyle SL, Lysaght J, Reynolds JV. Obesity and postoperative complications in patients under-
going non bariatric surgery. Obes Rev. 2010;11:875–86.
4. Khoury W, Kiran R, et al. Is the laparoscopic approach to colectomy safe for the morbidly
obese? Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1336–40.
5. The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, 21 Portland Place, London,
2007.
6. Gavin LA. Perioperative management of the diabetic patient. Endocrinol Metab Clin North
Am. 1992;21(2):457–75.
7. Lauruschkat AH, Arnrich B, Albert AA, et al. Prevalence and risks of undiagnosed diabetes melli-
tus in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Circulation. 2005;112(16):2397–402.
8. Rehman HU, Mohammed K. Perioperative management of diabetic patients. Curr Surg.
2003;60(6):607–11.
9. Walsh SR, Oates JE, Anderson JA, et al. Postoperative arrhythmias in colorectal surgical
patients: incidence and clinical correlates. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:212–6.
10. Fontaine KR, Redden DT, Wang C, Westfall AO, Allison DB. Years of life lost due to obesity.
JAMA. 2003;289:187–93.
11. Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, Thomas EJ, Polanczyk CA, Cook EF, Sugarbaker
DJ, Donaldson MC, Poss R, Ho KK, Ludwig LE, Pedan A, Goldman L. Derivation and pro­spective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation. 1999;100:1043–9.
12. Balentine CJ, Marshall C, Robinson C, Wilks J, Anaya D, Albo D, Berger DH. Obese patients
benefit from minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery. J Surg Res. 2010;163(1):29–34.
13. MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ. Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet.
1993;341:457–60.
14. Palmer R. Safety in laparoscopy. J Reprod Med. 1974;13:1–5.
15. Silber JH, et al. Medical and financial risks associated with surgery in the elderly obese. Ann
Surg. 2012;256(1):79–86.
10 Surgery on Obese Patients
16. Khoury W, Stocchi L, Geisler D. Outcomes after laparoscopic intestinal resection in obese
versus non-obese patients. Br J Surg. 2011;98(2):293–8.
17. Toma O, Suntrup P, Stefanescu A, London A, Mutch M, Kharasch E. Pharmacokinetics and
tissue penetration of cefoxitin in obesity: implications for risk of surgical site infection. Anesth Analg. 2011;113(4):730–7.
18. Morris MS, Graham LA, Chu DI, Cannon JA, Hawn MT. Ann Surg. Post Author Corrections:
20 Jan 2015.
19. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribu-
tion of body mass index among US adults, 1999–2010. JAMA. 2012;307(5):491–7.
127
Chapter 11
Robotics and Pelvic Floor
Nell Maloney-Patel, Juana Hutchinson-Colas, and Ashley Tsang

Introduction to Robotics for Repair of Pelvic Floor Disorders

Pelvic floor disorders can be categorized as primarily colorectal, gynecologic, or urologic. A multidisciplinary approach is often taken when there is a complex prolapse involving multiple organ systems [1]. Rectal prolapse, rectocele, enterocele, uterine prolapse, cystocele, and functional disorders of the pelvic floor muscles are all problems that can be treated surgically. Over a hundred operations have been described in the literature to repair pelvic organ prolapse. Generally, the operations can be divided into two broad categories, transabdominal and perineal. Evidence suggests that transabdominal procedures are more effective and applied to healthy patients while the perineal approach should be reserved for frail elderly patients with multiple comorbidities [2, 3].
Since the 1990s, major advances have been made in utilizing minimally invasive techniques in colorectal and gynecologic surgery with a majority of the abdominal
N. Maloney-Patel, M.D. Department of Surgery, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, Clinical Academic Building, 125 Paterson Street, Suite 4100, New Brunswick, NJ 08901- 1962, USA e-mail: malonene@rwjms.rutgers.edu
J. Hutchinson-Colas, M.D. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Pelvic Floor Program, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, Clinical Academic Building, 125 Paterson Street, Suite 2100, New Brunswick, NJ 08901­1962, USA e-mail: hutchij2@rwjms.rutgers.edu
A. Tsang, M.D. ( Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, MEB 596, P.O. Box 19, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0019, USA e-mail: ashley.tsang@rutgers.edu
V. Obias (ed.), Robotic Colon and Rectal Surgery, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43256-4_11
*)
129© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017
130
approaches being performed laparoscopically within the last decade [4]. While laparoscopic surgery has been proven to offer patients faster recovery, similar rates of recurrence, shorter lengths of stay, and minimal complications when compared to open abdominal techniques [4–6], surgeons have found limitations that prevent them from widely adopting it into practice to repair pelvic floor disorders. Some of these limitations include the need for advanced laparoscopic skills, difficulty with visualization in the narrow pelvic space, loss of dexterity, and increased operative time. The introduction of robotic surgery has mitigated many of these difficulties as it allows enhanced visualization through high definition 3-dimensional imaging, greater reach and dexterity through advanced endoscopic instrumentation, and ergonomics through electronic translation of natural hand motions while a surgeon is able to sit comfortably during a complex case [4]. The da Vinci Surgical Systems by Intuitive Surgical are currently the only robotic surgery devices approved by the Federal Drug Administration. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse is an excellent operation for surgeons learning to use the da Vinci systems as it provides a vivid and wide landscape of the pelvic anatomy.
N. Maloney-Patel et al.

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Prolapse

Background

Delaney and colleagues performed the first cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic sur­gery for rectal prolapse at the Cleveland Clinic in 2001. While their operative time was longer for the robotic cases, they found they had similar complication rates and total hospital costs with shorter lengths of stay when compared to their conventional lapa­roscopic operations [7]. Heemskerk and colleagues in the Netherlands published the largest series to date in 2007 comparing operative time and costs in 14 patients who had undergone robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy to 19 cases of conventional lapa­roscopic rectopexy during the same time period by the same surgeons. The first 11 patients underwent a Wells rectopexy with mesh affixed to the anterolateral walls of the rectum, while the other 22 underwent a modified D’Hoore procedure with mesh affixed to the ventral aspect of the distal rectum. They found that robot-assisted lapa­roscopic rectopexy did not show more complications. However, the average operative time was 39 min longer and at greater cost [8]. Overall, robot-assisted rectopexy has been proven safe and feasible in the literature [7–10].

Preoperative Evaluation

Before operative intervention, a careful history, physical examination, and colonos­copy should be performed. There are three types of rectal prolapse: complete or full-thickness (procidentia) (Fig. 11.1), mucosal or partial thickness, and internal or intussusception of the rectum into the anal canal without protrusion [11].
11 Robotics and Pelvic Floor
Fig. 11.1 Full thickness rectal prolapse
131
Patients often present with complaints of rectal prolapse or disordered gastroin­testinal elimination, either constipation or fecal incontinence. They may describe protrusion of anorectal tissue past the anal verge, which may exist alone or in com­bination with symptoms of dysfunctional bowel elimination. Patients complaining of constipation symptoms often describe excessive or prolonged straining with bowel movements, pain with defecation, or incomplete evacuation of the rectum. A careful history and physical examination in addition to defecography is helpful in distinguishing obstructive defecation from slow-transit constipation. A Sitzmark study is useful in evaluating intestinal transit and will help to determine whether a partial or subtotal colectomy should be performed in conjunction with rectopexy. For patients who complain of involuntary loss of bowel contents, several diagnos­tic modalities are useful for evaluation. These include endoanal ultrasound and anorectal manometry. Endoanal ultrasound is the primary modality because it can accurately determine defects in the internal and external anal sphincter as well as anal canal length. Anorectal manometry measures resting and squeezing pressures of the anal canal and can also provide important information regarding anorectal innervation [12].
The diagnosis of rectal prolapse can sometimes be confused with prolapsed incarcerated internal hemorrhoids. This is distinguished by taking a careful history and examination. Prolapsed incarcerated hemorrhoids produce extreme pain and can be accompanied by fever and urinary retention, while rectal prolapse is easily reducible and often painless unless incarcerated. Careful inspection of the perineum with the patient in the sitting or squatting position is helpful for proper diagnosis. In the case that the prolapse is not seen on examination, defecography may aid in the diagnosis [11]. Of patients with rectal prolapse, a third experience urinary incon­tinence and 15 % have concurrent vaginal vault prolapse [13]. A dynamic colpocys­toproctography (DCP) study or a dynamic MRI may assist in diagnosing other pelvic floor disorders involved. DCP has been shown to be a more sensitive test for
132
diagnosing pelvic organ prolapse than physical examination alone and is useful for combined surgical planning. These patients require the collaboration of multiple surgical specialists [14].
Because this age group also has the highest incidence of colorectal cancer, colonoscopy or barium enema should precede an operation [11]. A neoplasm may form the lead point for a rectal intussusception. In the event a neoplasm is discov­ered, the medical and surgical treatment can change significantly.
N. Maloney-Patel et al.

Technical Considerations

Once rectal prolapse has been diagnosed, anterior resection with or without recto­pexy, or rectopexy alone with or without mesh should be considered. Anterior resection involves resection of the sigmoid colon and proximal rectum with creation of a colorectal anastomosis. Resection rectopexy involves an anterior resection with suture fixation of the rectum to the sacrum (posterior) or Cooper’s ligament (ante­rior). It is the preferred surgical option for patients with procidentia associated with chronic constipation, extensive diverticular disease, and excessive redundant sig­moid. Mesh is often used to help create fibrosis for pelvic support and to prevent recurrence, but only in cases of rectopexy alone. If a resection is considered, the bowel should be mechanically prepared with a polyethylene glycol or sodium phos­phate solution. If a patient is unable to tolerate general anesthesia, a perineal approach should be considered which includes anal encirclement, mucosal resec­tion, and perineal proctosigmoidectomy [15, 16].

Patient Positioning, Preparation, and Port Placement with the da Vinci Si System

After general endotracheal anesthesia is induced, the patient is placed supine in a modi­fied lithotomy position with legs in adjustable stirrups and carefully secured to the table to avoid any shifting when adjusting the table. Bony prominences and pressure points are padded with both arms tucked, and the body position is secured with a vacuum­mattress device, especially laterally on the right side. A foley catheter is placed into the urinary bladder under sterile technique. An orogastric tube is placed by the anesthesi­ologist. The operative field is prepped and draped in standard fashion.
The abdominal cavity is entered through a 12 mm incision just 1 cm above the umbilicus using either the Hassan approach or Optiview with or without the Veress needle, whichever method is preferred by the surgeon. A camera port is inserted. The remote center or thick black band on the cannula must be at the level of the peritoneum. The abdomen is then insufflated. A 30° scope is introduced into the supraumbilical port and the peritoneal cavity is explored. A 13 mm port for the first instrument arm is then placed under direct visualization a minimum of 8 cm from
11 Robotics and Pelvic Floor
133
the camera port, 1 cm medial to the mid-clavicular line (MCL), and along the spinoumbilical line (SUL). The distance to the symphysis pubis should be approxi­mately 14–16 cm. If ileostomy is required, consider placing this port at the location of the area marked as the ostomy site. Under direct visualization, another 8 mm port for the second instrument arm is then placed a minimum of 8 cm from the camera port, 1 cm medial to the left MCL, and about 2 cm superior to the SUL. A third 8 mm port can be placed on the right or left flank to provide retraction and improve exposure. If planning to perform a resection rectopexy, a 15 mm port must be placed in the rightmost position to allow for the endoscopic stapling device. A 5 mm assis­tant port can be placed 8–10 cm cephalad to the first instrument arm and approxi­mately 2 cm medial to the right MCL (Fig. 11.2). Of note, port placement and docking may vary based on patient body habitus. It is also dependent on the surgeon’s com­fort and skill level. There are hybrid and dual docking instructions available through the da Vinci Surgery Online Community website. Please refer to Fig. 11.3 for port placements according to body habitus.
The patient is then tilted right side down in deep Trendelenburg (Fig. 11.4). Laparoscopic technique should be used to sweep the bowel out of the pelvis for exposure. Next, the robot is docked on the patient’s left side. The patient cart, camera arm, and endoscope port must be aligned crossing the anterior superior iliac spine. Standard robotic instrumentation includes an 8 mm or 12 mm camera, cautery hook for initial dissection, graspers, forceps, scissors, and vessel sealer.
Fig. 11.2 Port placement for rectopexy using the da Vinci Si system
134
Suggested port placement for tall patients Suggested port placement for short patients
N. Maloney-Patel et al.
3A
Assistant
Camera
1
Stapler Port
SUL
MCL
Suggested port placement for high BMI patients Suggested port placement for low BMI patients
3A
Assistant
1
SUL
Stapler Port
MCL
Midline
Camera
Midline
3B 3B
2
SUL
MCL
3B
2
SUL
MCL
SUL
SUL
3A
Assistant
1
Stapler Port
MCL
3A
Assistant
1
Stapler Port
MCL
Camera
Midline
Camera
Midline
2
MCL
3B
2
MCL
SUL
SUL
Fig. 11.3 Port placements according to body habitus
Table 11.1 presents a list of recommended robotic instruments and accessories . Additional laparoscopic graspers as well as suctioning may be available to be used by the bedside assistant.

Patient Positioning, Preparation, and Port Placement with the da Vinci Xi System

Patient positioning and preparation is similar to that of the da Vinci Si System. The da Vinci Xi System follows universal port placement guidelines. In order to maximize workspace, ports must be placed in a straight line of at least 6–8 cm apart. They must be placed at least 2 cm away from bony prominences. The initial endoscope
11 Robotics and Pelvic Floor
Fig. 11.4 Patient positioning for robotic rectopexy
Table 11.1 Recommended list of instruments and accessories for robotic-assisted repair of rectal
prolapse
Instruments Accessories
Hot shears Hot shears tip cover
Permanent cautery hook Hem-o-lok medium large Clips
Fenestrated bipolar forceps Hem-o-lok large clips
Double fenestrated grasper 2-0 Prolene CT or CT-1 needle
Small graptor (grasping retractor) 2-0 Prolene ST-70 needle
Cadiere forceps
Large clip applier
Large needle driver
Laparoscopic graspers
Laparoscopic forceps
Laparoscopic sealing/division
135
port must be inserted approximately 10–15 cm from the closest boundary of the target anatomy, and assistant ports must be placed at least 8 cm lateral to the adjacent ports, opposite of the patient cart. With the Xi System, the abdominal cavity is entered with assistance from the Veress needle. There is no Hassan available with this system. All ports are similar in size, except if requiring an endoscopic stapling device for colon resection, a 15 mm port must be placed. Therefore, the camera can be inserted into any of the ports.
For resection rectopexy, the initial endoscope port should be placed in the umbilicus or more superior and to the right if necessary. Using the universal port
136
Fig. 11.5 Port placement for Xi system
N. Maloney-Patel et al.
placement guidelines for the Xi system, the remaining ports should be placed in a straight line following an imaginary line from the patient’s left shoulder to the right hip as in Fig. 11.5. The system is then ready for deployment. Under anatomy selection, choose “Pelvic.” The approach should be from the patient’s left side. The operating room table should be placed as low as possible in Trendelenburg with right side down at or greater than 15°. The patient cart can then be driven to position the green laser crosshairs on the initial endoscope port. Adequate clearance must be ensured between the patient and the robotic arms. The arms should be flexed inward so that they are close together but not interfering with one another (Fig. 11.6). The boom should be centered above the initial endoscope. The arms should be docked according to the cart position. Arm 3 should be docked in the initial endoscope port if the patient cart is on the left, and Arm 2 should be docked in the initial endoscope port if the patient cart is on the right. The scope should be placed in the initial port and directed at the anatomy of interest for targeting.

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Rectopexy with Anterior Mesh Fixation

After proper patient positioning, port placement, and docking, the robotic instru­ments are introduced into the abdominal cavity via the ports. The lateral attachments of the sigmoid colon and rectum are incised with electrocautery. Dissection is carried down into the anterior space via Denonvilliers fascia to the rectovaginal space (Fig. 11.7a). Sometimes, a hernia sac that may be associated with an enterocele is