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_1370_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery
public and private initiative to develop standardized surveys of
patients’ experiences with ambulatory and facility-level care.(86)
CAHPS surveys provide information about patients’ care experiences rather than traditional clinical performance indicators,
such as cured of disease or morbidity and mortality.
The surgeons’ ability to measure and understand quality-oflife and other patient centered outcome would be of great value
to the colorectal cancer patient undergoing surgery. In practical
terms, patient expectations would be clearer. Few tested and useful
patient centered metrics have been evaluated and even fewer are in
use today.(87) Despite the lack of real progress in this area, insurers, patients, and others are very interested in determining what
patients think of the treatments we provide them. At this time, surgeons need to work closely with others to facilitate more comprehensive and nontraditional outcomes following surgical care.
CONCLUSION
In summary, this chapter on improving outcomes for abdominal surgery in colorectal cancer provides an overview of potential complications, methods to reduce complications, methods to
improve outcomes, surgical outcomes presently measured, and
the future of patient-centered outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. We have particularly emphasized the impact of the quality
movement and the role of outcomes on quality measurement and
assurance. The information presented in this chapter is critical as
quality metrics and measurement are likely to become more and
more important to the individual practitioner. Given that surgery for colorectal cancer has become increasingly more technical
due to the refinement of open as well as laparoscopic techniques,
outcomes measurement will become more and more important
as we prove to our patients, payers, Congress, and ourselves that
our outcomes are optimal. Although payers and other government groups have become the drivers of quality improvement, it
is our duty to measure our own outcomes, assess the quality of
care that we provide, and compare our own results with our colleagues. Internal efforts to improve quality are the most likely to
bring about real meaningful changes in outcomes for colorectal
cancer.
REFERENCES
1. Jagoditsch M, Lisborg PH, Jatzko GR et al. Long term prog-
nosis for colon cancer related to consistent radical surgery:
multivariate analysis of clinical, surgical, and pathologic
variables. World J Surg 2000; 24: 1264–70.
2. Mcdermott FT, Hughes ESR, Pihl E et al. Comparative
results of surgical management of single carcinomas of the
colon and rectum: a series of 1,939 patients managed by one
surgeon. Br J Surg 1981; 68: 850.
3. Chapuis PH, Dent OF, Fisher R et al. A multivariate analy-
sis of clinical and pathological variables in prognosis after
resection of large bowel cancer. Br J Surg 1985; 72: 698–702.
4. Tominaga T, Sakabe T, Koyama Y et al. Prognostic factors for
patients with colon or rectal carcinoma treated with resection
only. Five-year follow-up report. Cancer 1996; 78: 403–8.
5. Swanson RS, Compton CC, Stewart AK, Bland KI. The prog-
nosis of T3N0 colon cancer is dependent on the number of
lymph nodes examined. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10: 65–71.
6. Compton CC, Fielding LP, Burgart LJ et al. Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists
Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124:
979–94.
7. Wolmark N, Fisher B, Wieand HS et al. The prognostic significance of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels
in colorectal cancer. Results from NSABP (National Surgical
Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project) clinical trials. Ann Surg
1984; 199: 375–82.
8. Langevin JM; Nivatvongs S. The true incidence of synchronous cancer of the large bowel. A prospective study. Am J
Surg 1984; 147: 330–3.
9. Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin
Oncol 2008; 26: 303–12.
10. Quirke P, Dixon MF, Dundey P et al. Local recurrence of
rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection:
histopathologic study of lateral tumor spread and surgical
excision. Lancet 1986; 2: 996–8.
11. Vernava AM, Moran M, Rothenberger DA, Wong WD.
A prospective evaluation of distal margins in carcinoma of
the rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992; 175: 333–6.
12. Rouffet F, Hay J-M, Vacher B et al. Curative resection for
left colonic carcinoma: hemicolectomy vs. segmental colectomy. A prospective, controlled, multicenter trial. Dis Colon
Rectum 1994; 37: 651–9.
13. Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A et al. Guidelines 2000 for
colon and rectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93:
583–96.
14. Otchy D, Hyman NH, Simmang C et al. Practice parameters
for colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47: 1269–84.
15. Hermanek P. [Oncologic surgery/pathologic-anatomic viewpoint]. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd 1991; 277–81.
16. ASCO/NCCN Quality Measures: Breast and Colorectal
Cancer http://preview.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem
.5d1b4bae73a9104ce277e89a320041a0/?vgnextoid=1b08fcd
4eb46c010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD accessed May 6,
2007.
17. Compton CC. Updated protocol for the examination of
specimens from patients with carcinomas of the colon and
rectum, excluding carcinoid tumors, lymphomas, sarcomas,
and tumors of the vermiform appendix: a basis for checklists.
Cancer Committee. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124: 1016–25.
18. Bonjer HJ, Hop WC, Nelson H et al. Laparoscopically assisted
vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch
Surg 2007; 142: 298–303.
19. The Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group.
A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. NEJM 2004; 350: 2050–9.
20. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery
in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial):
multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 365:
1718–26.
21. Langevin JM, Rothenberger DA, Goldberg SM et al.
Accidental splenic injury during surgical treatment of the
colon and rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1984; 159: 139–44.

abdominal surgery for colorectal cancer
22. Golub R, Golub RW, Cantu R Jr, Stein HD. A multivariate
analysis of factors contributing to leakage of intestinal anastomoses. J Am Coll Surg 1997; 184: 364–72.
23. Alves A, Panis Y, Trancart D et al. Factors associated with
clinically significant anastomotic leakage after large bowel
resection: multivariate analysis of 707 patients. World J Surg
2002; 26: 499–502.
24. Suturing or stapling in gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective randomized study. West of Scotland and Highland
Anastomosis Study Group. Br J Surg 1991; 78: 337–41.
25. Docherty JG, McGregor JR, Akyol AM, Murray GD, Galloway
DJ. Comparison of manually constructed and stapled anastomoses in colorectal surgery. West of Scotland and Highland
Anastomosis Study Group. Ann Surg 1995; 221: 176–84.
26. Walstad PM. Operative trauma to the spleen: incidence,
morbidity and mortality. Am Surg 1974; 40: 586–90.
27. Makela JT, Kivineimi, Laitenen S. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after left sided colorectal resection with rectal
anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 653–60.
28. Bucher P, Mermillod B, Gervaz P, Morel P. Mechanical bowel
preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis.
Arch Surg 2004; 139: 1359–64.
29. Bucher P, Gervaz P, Soravia C et al. Randomized clinical trial
of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before
elective left-sided colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 409–14.
30. Hyman N, Manchester T, Osler T, Burns B, Cataldo P.
Anastomotic leaks after intestinal anastomosis: It’s later than
you think. Ann Surg 2007; 245: 254–8.
31. Nicksa GA, Dring RV, Johnson KH et al. Anastomotic leaks:
what is the best diagnostic imaging study? Dis Col Rectum
2007; 50: 197–203.
32. Hyman N, Manchester TL, Osler T, Burns B, Cataldo PA.
Anastomotic leaks after intestinal anastomosis: it’s later than
you think. Ann Surg 2007; 245: 254–8.
33. Khan AA, Wheeler JM, Cunningham C et al. The management and outcome of anastomotic leaks in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 2008; 10(6): 587–92.
34. Schecter S, Eisenstat T, Oliver G et al. Computerized tomographic scan guided drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses.
Dis Col Rectum 1994; 37: 984–8.
35. Lutchfeld MA, Milsom JW, Senagore A et al. Colorectal anastomotic stenosis. Results of a survey of the ASCRS membership. Dis Colon Rectum 1989; 32: 733–6.
36. Tuson JR, Everett WG. A retrospective study of colostomies, leaks, and strictures after colorectal anastomosis. Int J
Colorectal Dis 1990; 5: 44–8.
37. Chung RS, Hitch DS, Armstrong DN. The role of tissue ischemia in the pathogenesis of anastomotic stricture. Surgery
1988; 104: 824–9.
38. Graffner H, Fredlund P, Olsson SA, Oscarson J, Petersson BG.
Protective colostomy in low anterior resection of the rectum
using the EEA stapling instrument. Dis Colon Rectum 1983;
26: 87–90.
39. Virgilio C, Consentio S, Favara C, Russo V, Russo A.
Endoscopic treatment of postoperative colonic strictures
using an achalasia dilator: short-term and long-term results.
Endoscopy 1995; 27: 219–22.
40. Waxman BP, Ramsay AH. The effect of stapler diameter and
proximal colostomy on narrowing at experimental circular
stapled large bowel anastomosis. Aust N Z Surg 1986; 56:
797–801.
41. Matos DDM, Atallah A, Castro A, Silva Lustosa SA. Stapled
versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; 3: CD003144.
42. Suchan KL, Muldner A, Manegold BC. Endoscopic treatment
of postoperative colorectal anastomotic strictures. Surgical
endoscopy 2003; 17: 1110–3.
43. Forshaw MJ, Maphosa G, Sankararajah D, Parker MC, Stewart
M. Endoscopic alternatives in managing anastomotic strictures of the colon and rectum. Tech Coloproctol 2006; 10:
21–7.
44. Cirocco WC, Golub RW. Endoscopic treatment of postoperative hemorrhage from a stapled colorectal anastomosis.
American Surgeon 1995; 61: 460–3.
45. Malik AH, East JE, Buchanan, Kennedy RH. Endoscopic
haemostasis of staple-line hemorrhage following colorectal
resection. Colorectal Dis 2008; 10(6): 616–8.
46. Choy PYG, Bissett Ip, Docherty JG, Parry BR, Merrie AEH.
Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses.
Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2007; 3: CD004320.
47. Murray JJ, Schoetz DJ Jr. Stapling techniques in rectal surgery, In: Fazio VW(ed.) Current therapy in colon and rectal
surgery. Philadelphia: BC Decker, 1990: 384–90.
48. Chardavoyne R, Stein TA, Ratner LE et al. Is colonoscopy
safe in the early postcolectomy period? Am Surgeon 1991;
57: 734–36.
49. Chassin JL, Rifkind KM, Turner JW. Errors and pitfalls in
stapling gastrointestinal tract anastomoses. Surg Clin N Am
1984; 64: 441–59.
50. Charlmers AG. Robinson PJ, Chapman AH. Embolisation in
small bowel hemorrhage. Clin Radiology 1986; 37: 379–81.
51. Dubois JJ, Ostrow LB, Smith GB, Welling DR. Transcatheter
embolization of small bowel anastomosis: A case report and
review of the literature. Military Med 1989; 154: 505–7.
52. Atabek U, Pello MJ, Spence RK et al. Arterial vasopressin for
control of bleeding from a stapled intestinal anastomosis.
Report of two cases. Dis Colon Rectum 1992; 35: 1180–2.
53. Wang QY, Shi WJ, Zhou WQ, He ZR. New concepts in severe
presacral hemorrhage during proctectomy. Arch Surg 1985;
120: 1013–20.
54. Khan FA, Fang DT, Nivatvongs S. Management of presacral
bleeding during rectal resection. Surg Obst Gyn 1987; 165:
275–6.
55. Hill AD, Menzies-Dow N, Darzi A. Methods of controlling
presacral bleeding. JACS 1994; 178: 183–4.
56. Xu J, Lin J. Control of presacral hemorrhage with electrocautery through a muscle fragment pressed on the bleeding vein.
JACS 1994; 179: 351–2
57. Civelek A, Yegen C, Aktan AO. The use of bonewax to control
massive presacral bleeding. Surg Today 2002; 32: 944–5.
58. Konstadoulakis MM, Kymionis GD, Leandros E et al. Long
term effect of splenectomy on patients operated on for cancer of the left colon: a retrospective study. Eur J Surg 1999;
165: 583–87.

improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery
59. Lord MD, Gourevitch A. The peritoneal anatomy of the
spleen with special reference to the operation of partial gastrectomy. Br J Surg 1965; 52: 202–4.
60. Cioffiro W, Schein CJ, Gliedman ML. Splenic injury during
abdominal surgery. Arch Surg 1976; 111: 167–71.
61. Olsen W, Beaudoin D. Surgical Injury to the Spleen. Surg,
Gynecol, Obstet 1970; 131: 57–62.
62. Cassar K, Munro A. Iatrogenic splenic injury. J R Coll Surg
Edin 2002; 6: 731–41.
63. Fabri PJ, Metz EN, Nick WV, Zollinger RM. A quarter century with splenectomy. Changing concepts. Arch Surg 1974;
108: 569–75.
64. Rodkey GV, Welch CE. Changing patterns in the surgical treatment of diverticular disease. Ann Surg 1984; 200: 466–78.
65. McGory ML, Zingmond DS, Sekeris E, Ko CY. The significance of inadvertent splenectomy during colorectal cancer
resection. Arch Surg 2007; 142: 668–74.
66. Malek MM, Greenstein AJ, Chin EH et al. Comparison of
Iatrogenic Splenectomy During Open and Laparoscopic
Colon Resection. Sur Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2007;
17: 385–7.
67. Falsetto A, Della Corte M, De Pascale V, Surfaro G, Cennamo
A. Iatrogenic splenic injuries. Ann Ital Chir 2005; 76:
175–81.
68. Scheele J, Gentsch HH, Matteson E. Splenic repair by fibrin tissue adhesive and collagen and fleece. Surgery 1984; 95: 6–13.
69. Working Party of the British Committee for Standards
Clincal Hematology Task Force. Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of infection in patients with an absent of
dysfunctioned spleen. Br Med J 1996; 312: 430–3.
70. Higgins CC. Ureteral injuries during surgery. A review of 87
cases. JAMA 1967; 199: 82–8.
71. Al-Awadi K, Kehinde EO, Al-Hunayan A, Al-Khayat A.
Iatrogenic ureteric injuries: incidence, aetiological factors
and the effect of early management on subsequent outcome.
Int Urol Nephrol 2005; 37: 235–41.
72. Hamawy K, Smith JJ III, Libertino JA. Injuries of the distal
ureter. Seminar Colon Rectal Surg 2000; 11: 163–79.
73. Pocard M, Zindindohoue F, Haab F et al. A prospective
study of sexual and urinary function before and after total
mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for
rectal cancer. Surgery 2002; 131: 368–72.
74. Heald RJ, Ryall RD. Recurrence and survival after total
mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1986; 1: 1479–82.
75. Nesbakken A, Nygaard K, Bull-Njaa T, Carlsen E, Eri LM.
Bladder and sexual dysfunction after mesorectal excision for
rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2000; 87: 206–10.
76. McDonald PJ, Heald RJ. A survey of postoperative function
after rectal anastomosis with circular stapling devices. Br J
Surg 1983; 70: 727–9.
77. McAnena OJ, Heald RJ, Lockhart-Mummery HE. Operative
and functional results of total mesorectal excision with ultralow anterior resection in the management of carcinoma of
the lower one-third of the rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet
1990; 170: 517–21.
78. Batignani G, Monaci I, Ficari F et al. What affects continence
after anterior resection of the rectum? Dis Colon Rectum
1991; 34: 329–35.
79. Lewis WG, Holdsworth PJ, Stephenson BM et al. Role of the
rectum in the physiological and clinical results of coloanal
and colorectal anastomosis after anterior resection for rectal
carcinoma. Br J Surg 1992; 79: 1082–6.
80. Karanjia ND, Schache DJ, Heald RJ. Function of the distal
rectum after low anterior resection for carcinoma. Br J Surg
1992; 79: 114–6.
81. Lewis WG, Martin IG, Williamson ME et al. Why do some
patients experience poor functional results after anterior
resection of the rectum for carcinoma? Dis Colon Rectum
1995; 38: 259–63.
82. Miller AS, Lewis WG, Williamson ME et al. Factors that
influence functional outcome after coloanal anastomosis for
carcinoma of the rectum. Br J Surg 1995; 82: 1327–30.
83. Brown SR, Seow-Choen F. Preservation of rectal function
after low anterior resection with formation of a neorectum.
Semin Surg Oncol 2000; 19: 376–85.
84. Fazio VW, Zutshi M, Remzi FH et al. A randomized multicenter trial to compare long-term functional outcome, quality of life, and complications of surgical procedures for low
rectal cancers. Ann Surg 2007; 246: 481–90.
85. Machado M, Nygren J, Goldman S, Ljungqvist O. Similar
outcome after colonic pouch and side-to-end anastomosis in
low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 2003; 238: 214–20.
86. Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. URL: https://
www.cahps.ahrq.gov/default.asp.
87. Morris AM. Patient-centered outcomes after therapy for
colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2006; 15: 195–211.

6
Transanal approaches to rectal cancer
Sachin S Kukreja and Theodore J Saclarides
CHALLENGING CASE
A 67-year-old male underwent a screening colonoscopy and is
referred because a 3 cm adenocarcinoma was found approximately 12 cm from the anal verge. Preoperative workup with a
transrectal ultrasound and CT scan showed the lesion appeared
to be a uT1N0 cancer without metastatic disease. He has multiple medical problems including a myocardial infarction 3 months
prior and is not felt to be a good candidate for radical surgery.
CASE MANAGEMENT
The patient is offered Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM);
a complete full-thickness excision is successfully performed. Postoperatively, he has urinary retention. A bladder scan reveals 700 L
of urine within the bladder and catheterization is performed. The
retention resolves overnight and the patient is discharged the next
morning. Pathologic evaluation of the specimen revealed a pT1N0
rectal cancer.
INTRODUCTION
There are approximately 42,000 newly diagnosed rectal cancers
in the United States each year and approximately 9,500 people
die from their disease. Although adjuvant therapies continue to
improve outcomes, surgical management remains the cornerstone
of therapy as few patients can be cured without a surgical resection.
Surgical approaches are varied and are chosen based on the degree
of rectal wall invasion, tumor histology, the presence or absence
of lymph node metastases, involvement of the anal sphincter and
nearby pelvic structures, and disease comorbidities. Either a local
excision (with or without adjuvant therapy) or radical, transabdominal surgery (and possible chemoradiation) can be chosen. The
surgical management for rectal cancer has been evolving significantly over the last few decades and across geographic boundaries.
RECTAL CANCER AND SURGICAL OPTIONS
Traditional and more commonly applied treatment with total
mesorectal excision (TME) through either a low anterior (LAR)
or abdominoperineal resection (APR) is the standard against
which other procedures are compared. Such interventions are not
without significant morbidity, including anastomotic leak, wound
infection or dehiscence, colostomy malfunction, or pelvic dissection complications (including defecatory, urinary and sexual dysfunction, and fecal incontinence). Although such techniques are
well-accepted treatment modalities, the search for less invasive
and less morbid techniques that provide sphincter preservation
and acceptable cure rates has led to the evolution of a wide variety of alternative surgical procedures. Although less-invasive procedures including transanal fulguration, endocavitary radiation,
and transsphincteric or transsacral approaches have been utilized,
the transanal approaches have proven to be the most popular and
safest overall with less morbidity and mortality.(1)
Determining whether a patient may be a candidate for sphincter preservation (either through trans-anal or trans-abdominal
means) usually begins during the patient’s initial assessment.
More often than not, the patient comes to the surgeon after having
already undergone lower endoscopy. Rectal bleeding may have
prompted an evaluation or the patient may have been asymptomatic. Nonetheless, key questions related to the patient’s bowel
habits are critical in the assessment. Symptoms of tenesmus often
signal the presence of a large tumor which usually requires radical transabdominal surgery. Anal pain, with or without defecation may imply involvement of the anal sphincters or pelvic floor,
precluding a sphincter-preserving operation. Patients with fecal
incontinence should be identified in the preoperative workup
since proctectomy and sphincter preservation may worsen continence, condemning them to significant fecal soilage, even if such
a procedure is technically possible.
Both digital rectal exam (DRE) and rigid sigmoidoscopy are
required in the evaluation. Localizing the lesion to the lower, middle, or upper third of the rectum helps determine what options the
patient may have. Involvement of the anal sphincter, the tumor’s
spatial relationship to the anorectal ring, and fixation to the pelvic
side walls are important physical findings that help guide the decision making process. Additionally, the patient’s overall medical
status must be taken into consideration as some may not be able
to tolerate a large abdominal operation due to a myriad of comorbidities. Finally, before planning surgery, a complete colonoscopy is
essential to rule out synchronous lesions elsewhere in the colon.
Accessible well-differentiated cancers that are <4 cm in size, lack
lymphovascular invasion, occupy <40% of the bowel wall circumference, and do not invade the muscularis propria have historically been
considered the most amenable to a transanal approach. Although
these criteria are not necessarily strict guidelines, tumors larger than
this are associated with a significantly higher incidence of lymph
node metastasis. Many authors will not offer a transanal approach
for lesions larger than 3 cm in diameter due to the risk of incomplete
excision. Upon DRE, those masses that are immobile and fixed are
likely to be transmural and hence, require a traditional TME surgery
following neoadjuvant therapy. It is well established that even in the
most experienced of hands, manual exam alone can differentiate T1/
T2 tumors from T3/T4 tumors only 80% of this time. Lymph node
metastases can be detected digitally in only 50% of instances.(2)
Rigid proctosigmoidoscopy allows the clinician to evaluate and
more accurately localize the tumors beyond what is within reach
of the DRE within the middle and upper rectum. Lesions that
may have been labeled as being 15 cm from the anal verge with
flexible endoscopy may be closer to the anus when evaluated with
a rigid scope. Various imaging modalities exist and should be utilized to assess depth of invasion and the presence of lymph node
involvement; these include CT scan, MRI, and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). With its ease of use, widespread availability, and high

improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery
overall accuracy, many clinicians rely on TRUS in their standard
preoperative work-up for rectal cancer and consider it to be the best
method of preoperative staging. Many series cite an accuracy rate of
90% for staging rectal wall penetration and an 80% accuracy rate
for assessing the status of the perirectal lymph nodes. Factors such
as peritumoral fibrosis, inflammation, increasing tumor height, and
operator experience have all been shown to decrease the sensitivity
of TRUS.(3) Some authors recommend the routine use of MRI with
endorectal coils to maximize sensitivity.(4) Although traditionally
indicated for only early (T1) lesions, trans-anal excision (TA) and
TEM can be offered to patients with more advanced disease in specific clinical circumstances especially when combined with radiation
and chemotherapy. Conventional TA is more commonly utilized in
the United States than TEM; however, neither approach is capable
of addressing nodal disease to its full extent. As a result, appropriate
patient selection is critical when using either procedure with curative intent. Compared to TA, TEM is more likely to achieve negative
margins and cause less specimen fragmentation.
TRANSANAL EXCISION
A significant number of low rectal cancers (less than 5–10 cm from
the anal verge) can be approached by transanal excision, particularly those that are early stage. The justification for less invasive
techniques is largely established by the low rate of nodal metastases in T1 disease. In the absence of significant nodal involvement
identified by CT, MRI, or TRUS, one can estimate the incidence of
positive lymph nodes to be 3%—if the lesion is favorable (well to
moderately differentiated, confined to the mucosa and submucosa,
have no vascular invasion, and small size). By contrast, poor histological grade confers a 12% risk of nodal involvement.(5) Clearly,
the issues are the ability to identify nodal involvement before surgical intervention and to remove the lesion with negative margins.
Local excision (TA) is considered acceptable for T1 adenocar-
cinomas that carry favorable prognostic features. Such characteristics include small size (<4 cm), lack of fixation, histology that is
either moderately or well-differentiated and absence of vascular,
perineural, or lymphatic invasion. Reports describe cure rates as
high as 90% with a recurrence rate of <10% for patients with the
above characteristics. Unfortunately, there is significant variation
in the data, as a recent review of 41 retrospective studies shows a
5-year local recurrence rate of 12% with a range of 0–19%.(6)
As a general rule, local excision may be considered for less invasive
tumors with good histological characteristics. Local excision can be
considered for T1 and T2 (controversial) lesions depending on the
clinical circumstance, but is considered contraindicated for T3 (particularly without adjuvant modalities) if one seeks oncologic cure.
Comparable oncologic outcomes could be expected in T1 low risk
rectal cancers removed with local excision without adjuvant therapy when compared with classic total mesorectal excision (TME).
However, the outcomes are significantly worse for T2 lesions when
adjuvant therapies were not applied. Recurrence rates in early T1 and
T2 disease are clearly affected by unfavorable histological characteristics (e.g., Grade III, lymphovascular invasion). Because of this, local
excision alone is considered inadequate for T2, T3 tumors; some
authors, however, offer these patients neoadjuvant therapies.
Although there is clearly a role for TA excision in T1 disease
with favorable characteristics, many surgeons are looking at the
feasibility of treating more advanced cancers with less invasive
modalities than traditional TME. Studies that have evaluated
outcomes with T2 and T3 tumors are difficult to interpret due
to overall small population size and their retrospective nature;
however, several clinical reports demonstrated promise for treating more advanced disease, some showed improved outcomes
with adjuvant therapies before or after local excision.(7) A single
multicenter trial showed that local excision could control rectal
adenocarcinoma and reduce sphincter dysfunction with an overall 6-year survival of 85% and disease-free survival rate of 78% in
select T1 and T2 cancers (<4 cm, <40% circumference, negative
histological margins, and node-negative). It should be noted that
the oncologic outcomes for T1 lesions and T2 lesions treated with
adjuvant chemoradiation were roughly equivalent and differences
between histological grade was not evaluated.(8)
Locally advanced T3 rectal cancers represent an area of evolving
research. Although most centers offer such patients neoadjuvant
therapies followed by TME, some surgeons are attempting TA
excision on these tumors with satisfactory results. In a 2002 study
from the University of Florida, Dr. Schell performed TA excision
on patients whose tumors had been significantly downstaged
from T3 with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (15% of patients of
an initial 74). There was no local recurrence or nodal metastasis
after a mean follow-up of 55.2 ± 8.9 months (one patient developed distant metastasis). These patients had lesions 1–7 cm from
the anal verge. Although the overall study size was limited and
should not be considered the standard of care, it offers promise for
those patients with advanced disease who may not be candidates
for or refuse TME.(9) Similar results were demonstrated at the
University of South Florida in 2001. Twenty-six patients with T2
or T3 disease (5 uT2N0, 13T3N0, 7T3N1 and 1 un-staged patient)
underwent neoadjuvant therapy and subsequent local excision.
Following excision, no specimens had vascular, neural, or lymphatic invasion and six contained lymph nodes in the perirectal fat
without evidence of metastatic disease. Partial pathologic response
was demonstrated in nine and complete response in 17 patients.
Of the partial responders, all were offered but only two underwent
subsequent APR. With a mean follow-up of 24 months, none of
the complete responders had demonstrated recurrence.(10)
Transanal excision may remove perirectal lymph nodes directly
adjacent to the lesion while other nodes in the mesorectum may
still harbor metastatic disease. For this reason, some authors
favor adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy (radiation with or without chemotherapy) for more advanced lesions. The majority of
studies reporting recurrence rates are variable in their follow-up
and ultimate outcomes making interpretation difficult, but the
data does suggest a benefit for adjuvant therapies in this setting.
Risk factors for recurrence are related to the depth of the primary
tumor, surgical margins, histologic grade, and the status of the
perirectal nodes. Overall recurrence rates are decreased when local
excision is combined with radiation and chemotherapy, ranging
from 0–15% for T1 and T2 lesions, and 0–20% for T3 lesions.
(11–16) A review of the literature with regards to local excision
and recurrence rates with and without adjuvant therapies was
performed by Sengupta in 2001.(6) A summary of outcomes in
these patients is summarized and demonstrates the variability in
recurrence rates (Table 26.1).

transanal approaches to rectal cancer
Table 26.1 Local Recurrence Rates by T-stage and Adjuvant Therapy (Sengupta, 2001, Ref. 6).
Local Recurrence Rates (%)
Study Follow-up Local Excision Alone Local Excision and Adjuvant Therapy
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Mellgren et al. 2000 4.4 years 18
Russell et al. 2000 6.1 years 7 (1/14) 0 (0/13) 16 (4/25) 23 (3/13)
Chakravarti et al. 1999 51 month 11
Graham et al. 1999 56 month 0 (0/4) 0 (0/2) 0 (0/9) 0 (0/5)
Steele et al. 1999 48 month 5 (3/59) 13.7 (7/51)
Varma et al. 1999 6 years 4.7 (1/21) 45.5 (5/11) 25 (1/4) 0 (0/3) 0 (0/9) 0 (0/6)
Wagman et al. 1999 41 month 0 (0/8) 24 (6/25) 25 (2/8)
Le Voyer et al. 1999 46 month 6.7 (1/15) 12.5 (2/16) 25 (1/4)
Benoist et al. 1998 57 month 10 (2/19) 25 (2/8) 33 (1/3)
Kim and Madoff 1998 NS 9 (4/44) 24 (6/25) 50 (1/2)
Taylor et al. 1998 52 month 24 (6/25) 50 (4/8) 100 (1/1) 50 (1/2) 11 (1/9) 50 (1/2)
Bleday 1997 40.5 month 9 (2/22) 0 (0/21) 40 (2/5)
Valentini et al. 1996 54 month 11 (1/9) 17 (2/12)
Baron et al. 1995 55.3 month 19 (8/42) 20 (7/34) 27 (3/11)
Frazee et al. 1995 30 month 10 2/21 0 (0/9) 0 (0/2)
Willett et al. 1994 48 month 17
Ota et al. 1992 36 month 0 (0/16) 6.7 (1/15) 20 (3/15)
Huber and Koella 1992 NS 22 (2/9) 23 (3/13) 33 (2/6)
Cuthbertson and Simpson 1986 51 month 12.5 44 (4/9)
Killingback 1985 >18 month 17.8 (5/28) 33 (2/6)
Steams et al. 1984 ≥5 years 6.7 (1/15) 14 (2/14) 50 (1/2)
Hager et al. 1983 33–40.5 month 8.3 (3/36) 16.7 (3/18)
Note: NS = not stated.
a. Five-year actuarial local recurrence rates.
TECHNIQUES OF TRANSANAL EXCISION
Before surgery, rigid proctoscopy is done to determine the exact
location of the lesion and whether or not it is accessible with
conventional instrumentation. The rest of the colon is checked
for synchronous neoplasms with either colonoscopy or a contrast
a
a
a
47
a
67
0a 15
a
a
a
20
Overall the complication rate from transanal excision is considered low and is usually limited to urinary retention, urinary
tract infection, bleeding, fecal impaction, and infections in the
perirectal and ischiorectal space. Most series cite a mortality of
virtually zero.
enema. Overall fitness for general anesthesia is determined. In
preparation for the operation, a bowel cleansing is performed, this
will eliminate formed stool from the rectum and enhance visibility. The patient is positioned on the operating room table so that
access to the lesion is provided, this usually necessitates the prone
position for anterior lesions, the lithotomy position for posterior
lesions, and the decubitus position for laterally based lesions.
Various self-retaining retractors are available and are placed in the
anus and deployed. Once the lower edge of the lesion is visualized,
a clamp is placed on normal mucosa under the lesion and downward traction is applied to the clamp. Stay sutures may facilitate
this process. This downward traction is an ongoing process during excision so that the entire lesion is delivered into the operative
field. A rim of normal appearing mucosa is marked with cautery
points around the lesion and then a full thickness excision is performed. It is important to obtain hemostasis as one proceeds since
a bloodless field is vital for maintaining visibility. Once the lesion
is excised, the wound is closed transversely so as to avoid narrowing the rectal lumen. Transanal excision using conventional
instrumentation is limited to lesions located in the lower and possibly the mid rectum and for lesions which are not larger than 3 to
4 cm in diameter. More proximally located or larger lesions may
be beyond the capability of these retractors, however, this is highly
variable depending on the surgeon’s expertise, the body habitus of
the patient, and the laxity of the rectal wall.
TRANSANAL ENDOSCOPIC MICROSURGERY (TEM)
The introduction of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM)
by G. Buess over two decades ago opened the door to transanal
resection of lesions (both benign and malignant) beyond the
reach of conventional TA instruments with increasingly favorable
results through a method less invasive than radical open surgery.
Additionally, appropriately sized tumors with certain specified
histological characteristics could be removed with outcomes comparable to traditional surgery. With the potentially high recurrence rate of pT1 disease with TA excision and the morbidity of
traditional TME, many surgeons have been investigating TEM.
When compared with TA excision, the technique of TEM allows
for superior visualization, access to lesions further from the anal
verge within the mid and upper rectum, en-bloc resection rather
than fragmentation, and possible excision of the mesorectal fat
and the nodes contained within (Figure 26.1). Local recurrence
rates may be lower with TEM (compared with TA) excision due to
a reduced risk of implantation of viable tumor cells in the wound,
less tissue fragmentation of the tumor, and a higher likelihood of
obtaining negative margins.(1)
The safety and outcomes for TEM in T1 lesions with favorable
characteristics has been well-established. For this reason, TEM
alone is only indicated for T1 tumors if one seeks oncologic cure.
Multiple clinical trials have shown favorable oncologic outcomes

improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery
Figure 26.1 Schematic of TEM Specimen.
and low morbidity with virtually zero mortality. Winde was the
first to demonstrate in a randomized prospective trial that there
was no statistically significant difference in outcome between
TEM (n = 24) and open radical surgery (n = 26) for pT1 tumors
with a 5-year survival of 96% for both techniques. Overall, the
local recurrence rate was 4.1% for TEM (0% with radical surgery).
Patients who underwent TEM had decreased operative times, less
blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, lower analgesic needs, and less
morbidity.(17) Our personal experience from 1991–2003 (n = 53)
showed low recurrence rates and acceptable oncologic results in
patients with pT1 disease. In these patients, the average distance
from the anal verge was 7 cm (25% of which were further than
10 cm from the anal verge) and the average tumor size was 2.4 cm
with a local recurrence rate of 7.5%.(18)
Using TEM to cure rectal cancer has been largely limited to
“low-risk” T1 lesions while its role in T2 and T3 lesions is evolving.
TEM without adjuvant therapy is inadequate for T2 and greater
lesions and can be expected to have recurrence rates of 20–25%.
Tumors staged to pT2 have a high risk of lymph node metastasis
(16–40%).(5) Because many patients with rectal cancer are older,
may be either unfit to undergo radical resection, or refuse TME
due to its morbidities and the potential for an ostomy, many seek
to broaden the applications of TEM.
Multiple trials have taken place to evaluate the feasibility of
achieving adequate oncologic results with the overall improved
morbidity profile of TEM. In a study aimed to more clearly identify
T2 disease as potentially amenable to TEM, Lezoche randomized
70 patients equally to either TEM or LAR following neoadjuvant
therapy. These patients all had tumors <6 cm from the anal verge
and were <3 cm in overall size. After a minimum 5-year follow-up
(median 84 months), the local recurrence rate was 5.7% with TEM
and 2.8% with LAR. Distant metastasis was observed in 2.8% with
both population groups having equivalent survival of 94%.(19)
Similar results were noted when TEM and radical surgery groups
were compared when T1 (n = 52 and 17, respectively) and T2
(n = 22 and 83, respectively) lesions followed for 5 years after TEM
excision without adjuvant therapies. Their 5-year survival was equivalent but the TEM group demonstrated a significantly increased local
recurrence rate for T2 lesions at 19.5% vs. 9.4%.(20)
Other studies followed the course of disease in those patients
that were either upstaged after what was thought to be T1 disease
before excision but did not receive further surgical therapy, or those
who were unfit or unwilling to undergo a more radical operation
for their advanced disease at time of initial presentation. Borschitz
retrospectively evaluated patients who had undergone TEM excision of “low-risk” T1 lesions, but were found to be pT2 (n = 44)
and did not undergo further surgery or treatment (n=14). It was
determined that local excision for T2 lesions was insufficient without adjuvant therapies or radical reoperative resection. This was
true despite an R0 resection, “low-risk” lesions had a 29% local
recurrence rate within less than 2 years’ follow-up. If the patients
were “high-risk” or had positive or unclear histological margins, the
recurrence rate nearly doubled. “High-risk” lesions had poor tumor
grade, lymphatic invasion, or blood vessel involvement. With immediate (within 4 weeks) reoperation, these patients had outcomes
similar to conventional surgery barring the presence of lymph
node metastasis. In those patients with “high-risk” characteristics,
lymph node metastases were more common and occurred despite
reoperation with significant local and systemic recurrence rates.
These patients should receive adjuvant chemoradiation following
their radical resections per standard protocols.(21) Although there
are more studies analyzing outcomes of TEM with both adjuvant
and neoadjuvant therapy, studies of adequate size and power are
still lacking and the indications for local curative surgery for lesions
more advanced than T1 remain gray.
In conclusion, there are few prospective studies evaluating the
benefits of adjuvant therapies and retrospective studies can be difficult to interpret. Overall, like transanal excision, recurrence rates
for lesions treated with TEM combined with adjuvant therapy are
lower when compared to TEM alone for T2 lesions. Preliminary
results and reviews of smaller trials comparing TEM excision of T2
lesions with postoperative chemoradiation seem to be on par with
the results of APR with adjuvant therapy from an oncologic perspective. As a result, the recommendation from some is to provide
adjuvant therapies for all lesions that are T2 or greater; whereas
TEM or TA alone are considered acceptable for T1 “low-risk”
lesions given the low likelihood of lymph node involvement.
TECHNIQUES OF TRANSANAL ENDOSCOPIC
MICROSURGERY
TEM resolves many of the limitations posed by conventional transanal excision techniques, namely limited access to
lesions located beyond the distal rectum and poor visibility.
Consequently, the applicability of minimally invasive surgery
for rectal cancer is broadened. TEM employs an airtight, selfcontained system that constantly distends the rectum with
carbon dioxide insufflation, this along with the magnification
provided by the scope greatly improves visibility and allows for
a more precise excision and wound closure. As a result, one is
more likely to obtain tumor-free margins and avoid tumor fragmentation during the operation. The combined endosurgical
unit regulates four functions simultaneously. In addition to gas
insufflation, it allows for suction of smoke and blood, irrigation
of the scope lens, and monitoring of intrarectal pressure. The
stereoscopic binocular eyepiece provides four times magnification of the field, alternatively, vision may be transmitted to a
video monitor. The long shafted instruments necessary for the
dissection are inserted through air tight working ports on the

transanal approaches to rectal cancer
facepiece of the scope which is 20 cm in length. Depending on
the curvature of the sacrum, this scope may easily reach lesions
located in upper rectum or even at the rectosigmoid junction.
Patients are prepared for surgery in a fashion similar to conventional transanal excision. A bowel cleansing is paramount.
The operation is performed under general anesthesia. Patients
are positioned on the operating room table so that the lesion
is located downward relative to the end of the scope. Again, for
posterior lesions, patients are placed in the lithotomy position,
while the prone position is chosen for anterior lesions. Once the
lesion is visualized, cautery points are placed 1 cm around the
lesion and a full thickness excision is performed. The specimen
is then fixed to a cork board or Telfa paper in order to orient the
pathologist to the deep and lateral margins. The wound is closed
transversely with a monofilament suture. Most patients can be
released the same day.
COMPLICATIONS OF TRANSANAL AND TEM
The complication rates of TEM are significantly lower than
traditional radical surgery. In a review of 12 studies performed by
Casadesus in 2006, the morbidity of 893 patients was evaluated.
(22) Complications were noted in 15.9% of the patients overall,
more than half of which were related to urinary retention or transient incontinence. These complications are typically seen early in
the postoperative period and very few patients required intervention other than catheterization for resolution. The rate of bleeding was also extremely low, seen in approximately 3% of cases of
TEM and rarely required either transfusion or operative intervention. Postoperative fever, pelvic pain, and myocardial infarction
have been reported but are also extremely rare. Throughout the
literature, there is only one reported case of death directly following TEM. This patient died from septic shock 4 weeks following
TEM excision of a rectal adenoma secondary to a retroperitoneal
phlegmon.(23) With TEM surgery, there is always the possibility
of rectal perforation, particularly with anteriorly located lesions.
Major complications of perforation, wound dehiscence, and
fistula formation have all been reported. Perforation with intraabdominal contamination is a rare complication and is clearly both
operator and patient dependent and may require conversion to
an open operation for control. This can be especially problematic
in the older female who may have undergone prior hysterectomy.
Perforation in these patients may yield fistula formation. Wound
dehiscence has been described but is also a rare, but potential
complication. In a large review of 334 patients, a major complication rate of 5.5% was cited. This included both intraperitoneal
sepsis (n=3) and rectovaginal fistula (n=3).(24)
The vast majority of TEM outcomes are reviewed in terms of
oncologic results and complication rates. Remembering that one
of the reasons for the promotion of less invasive procedures is
sphincter preservation, some studies have analyzed continence
and sphincter function postoperatively. Manometric studies of the
anal sphincter have shown that the main risk for anal dysfunction
after TEM is preoperative anal dysfunction. Additionally, other
causes of postoperative anal dysfunction are advanced patient age,
direct tumor involvement of the sphincter, postoperative internal
sphincter defects, the extent and depth of tumor excision, loss of
anal mucosa, and duration of the procedures. Sphincter function
is affected by rectoanal perception and coordination, and electrosensitivity of the anal mucosa—all of which are affected by TEM.
Some patients also report an increase in bowel frequency which
is likely related to decreased rectal compliance following reductions in the overall rectal diameter from full-thickness or circumferential excisions.(22) Despite these reports, complication rates
related to altered bowel habits remains exceedingly low (less than
2%) and the majority of these changes such as decreased resting
pressures are seen during physiologic testing, but are not often
clinically significant.(25, 26)
TRANSANAL (TA) VS. TRANSANAL ENDOSCOPIC
MICROSURGERY (TEM)
Few reviews directly comparing the results of TA vs. TEM excision
exist. Surgeons at the University of Vermont recently reviewed 171
patients treated between 1990 and 2005 by either traditional TA
excision (n = 89) or TEM (n = 82) for rectal cancers.(27) During
the course of their experience, they transitioned to the TEM
technique in 2001, after which only 20 TA excisions took place.
Although the results of seven surgeons were reviewed, only one
performed all the TEM. The two populations were similar with
respect to age, gender, lesion type, stage, and size with an overall
mean follow-up of 37 months (significant difference in follow-up
between the two groups due to their change to primarily TEM
during the time period studied). All patients with T1 lesions
with adverse features or T2 lesions received postoperative adjuvant therapy. Patients with T3 lesions underwent local excision
only if they were considered too high risk for radical surgery or
if they refused traditional resection. The decision to give patients
with T3 lesions postoperative chemoradiation was made on an
individualized basis.
Postoperative complications among the TA and the TEM
group were roughly equivalent (15% and 17%, respectively, p =
0.69) with the most common being urinary retention (6% and
7%, respectively). The TA group had six major complications
including two anovaginal fistulae, one leak requiring an operation, one bleed, one arrhythmia, and one patient who developed
renal failure. The TEM group had two anovaginal fistulae and two
leaks requiring operations. Overall, the difference between the
two groups was not found to be significant. However, the patients
who did undergo TEM enjoyed a significantly shorter hospital
stay (0.6 days vs. 1.5 days). With regards to oncologic outcomes,
90% of the patients who underwent TEM had negative margins.
TA patients had both a higher positive margin rate (15%) and
indeterminate margin rate (15%) (p=0.001). Specimens were
more likely to be removed intact rather than in a piece-meal
fashion with TEM vs. TA (95% vs. 65%, p < 0.001). Lastly, local
recurrence rates were dramatically improved with TEM (8% vs.
24%, p = 0.004) and such results were concordant with other retrospective reviews. Two-thirds of the local recurrences with TEM
occurred after palliative resections defined as being T3 at the time
of diagnosis or patients were either too ill to tolerate or refused a
more radical operation. When considering only those TEM and
TA cases performed with curative intent, the recurrence rate fell
to 3% vs. 26% with transanal approaches (p = 0.06). No significant difference in distal recurrence was demonstrated (1% with
TEM, 4% with TA). Although a criticism of the above data is the

improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery
Table 26.2 Outcomes with Transanal (TA) vs. Transanal Endoscopic
Microsurgery (TEM) for lesions up to T3 (Moore, 2008).
TA (n = 89)
TEM (n = 82) n (%) or Mean ± SD P Value
Any complication (yes) 12 (15) 15 (17) 0.69
Major complication 4 (33) 6 (40)
Minor complication 8 (67) 9 (60)
LOS (days) 0.63 ± 1 1.46 ± 3 0.007
Specimen fragmentation < 0.001
Whole 77 (94) 58 (65)
Fragmented 5 (6) 28 (31)
Unreported 0 (0) 3 (3)
Margins negative 74 (90) 63 (71) 0.001
Positive Recurrence 4 (5) 24 (29) 0.01
All cause mortality 2 (2) 26 (29) 0.01
disparity in follow-up between the two groups, most feel that the
vast majority of recurrences will usually occur within the first
2 years and the mean follow-up for both groups was well beyond
this time frame. With this, TEM appears to offer superior outcomes to TA in patients with T1 or T2 lesions with appropriate
adjuvant therapies (Table 26.2).(27)
THE CLEAR ADVANTAGES OF LOCAL SURGERY
Although the oncologic advantages of TA or TEM excision of rectal cancers remain controversial in many circles, few can argue the
benefits of pursuing a less invasive procedure. For patients whose
medical comorbidities may place them at a higher or even unacceptable operative risk, TA or TEM approaches offer a solution
that may confer acceptable oncologic outcomes as well. The same
is true for those patients that have advanced disease but require
palliation of symptoms. Patients with unresectable distant disease, however, usually have large bulky primary tumors which
are not amenable to transanal excision. Both LAR and APR are
associated with significant morbidity and mortality which can
be avoided with either TA or TEM excision in the appropriately
selected patient. In patients who undergo traditional TA or TEM,
the overall complication rates remain low and overall morbidity is minimal. A review of patients who had undergone TEM as
compared with TME showed that although long-term quality of
life was equal, patients who underwent TEM tended to have fewer
defecation disorders, and, although not statistically significant,
improved sexual function as well.(28)
WHEN LOCAL SURGERY FAILS
Following TA or TEM excision, aggressive surveillance is indicated
to detect recurrent disease. The reason for both local and distal
recurrence is not always clear, particularly in the face of what was
considered early disease and in the absence of involved excisional
margins. With regard to distant failure, occult disease may have
been present at the time of initial presentation but not identified
during the preoperative workup. In these instances, distant failure is not due to presumed inadequate local treatment, but rather
is a reflection of aggressive tumor biology. Local recurrence is
more frequently related to the mesorectal disease rather than at
the pelvic walls.(3) Additionally, fragmentation of the specimen
at the time of excision and the inability to remove full thickness
tissue during excision can predispose to local recurrence. In the
presence of recurrent rectal cancer, there is currently no role for
either TA or TEM from an oncologic perspective. Factors associated with an increased risk of local recurrence include those
characteristics previously described as “high risk” which include
poor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion, and of course,
those whose excision is incomplete. Studies of patients that had
undergone TEM for T1 and T2 lesions without evidence of lymph
node metastasis found that patients who lesions carried the above
characteristics had a significantly elevated risk of local recurrence
necessitating salvage surgery.(29)
Recurrent disease requires a TME by way of either an LAR or
APR. Patients that undergo salvage TME have decreased survival
when compared with their counterparts that had the operation as
part of the initial management. In a study that evaluated patients
who had initially undergone TA excision (n=155) for lesions with
adverse histological characteristics and subsequently salvage APR
(n=21), the disease free survival was only 56% vs. 94% for those
who undergone immediate APR.(30)
FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF STUDY
Traditional TA surgery is evolving into TEM in many circles as
surgeon familiarity and advanced laparoscopic skills become
increasingly prevalent. Although TA is widely practiced by many,
TEM confers the benefits of TA surgery with multiple clear clinical advantages. The indications for TEM will continue to increase
in number as improved outcomes for more advanced disease are
demonstrated throughout the literature. Sentinel lymphangiography may soon be applicable to colon and rectal cancer with
potential TEM utilization. Additionally, with neoadjuvant therapies for advanced disease becoming increasingly effective in many
patients, subjecting such patients to radical surgeries after their
malignancies have often been reduced to a scar may prove to be
unnecessarily aggressive, further opening the door to TEM and
potential resection of the tissue that previously contained malignancy. Research into necessary tissue margins for TEM following
such therapies is currently being undertaken. Although there will
always be a role for traditional TME in the form of both LAR and
APR procedures, the role of TA and TEM surgery continues to
expand within the management of rectal cancer.
REFERENCES
1. Whiteford MH. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM)
resection of rectal tumors. J Gastrointest Surg 2007; 11(2):
155–7.
2. Nicholls RJ, Mason AY, Morson BC et al. The clinical staging
of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 1982; 69(7): 404–9.
3. Bretagnol F, Rullier E, George B et al. Local therapy for rec-
tal cancer: still controversial? Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50(4):
523–33.
4. Maslekar S, Pillinger SH, Monson JR. Transanal endoscopic
microsurgery for carcinoma of the rectum. Surg Endosc
2007; 21(1): 97–102.
5. Hermanek P, Gall FP. Early (microinvasive) colorectal carci-
noma. Pathology, diagnosis, surgical treatment. Int J Colorectal
Dis 1986; 1(2): 79–84.
6

transanal approaches to rectal cancer
6. Sengupta S, Tjandra JJ. Local excision of rectal cancer: what
is the evidence? Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44(9): 1345–61.
7. Ruo L, Guillem JG, Minsky BD et al. Preoperative radiation
with or without chemotherapy and full-thickness transanal
excision for T2 and T3 distal rectal cancers. Int J Colorectal
Dis 2002; 17(1): 54–8.
8. Steele GD Jr, Herndon JE, Bleday R et al. Sphincter-sparing
treatment for distal rectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol
1999; 6(5): 433–41.
9. Schell SR, Zlotecki RA, Mendenhall WM et al. Transanal excision
of locally advanced rectal cancers downstaged using neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. J Am Coll Surg 2002; 194(5): 584–90.
10. Kim CJ Yeatman TJ, Coppola D et al. Local Excision of T2
and T3 rectal cancers after downstaging chemoradiation.
Ann Surg 2001; 234(3): 352–8.
11. Wong CS, Stern H, Cummings BJ. Local excision and postoperative radiation therapy for rectal carcinoma. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 25(4): 669–75.
12. Chakravarti A, Compton CC, Shellito PC et al. Long-term
follow-up of patients with rectal cancer managed by local
excision with and without adjuvant irradiation. Ann Surg
1999; 230(1): 49–54.
13. Paty PB, Nash GM, Baron P et al. Long-term results of local
excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 2002; 236(4): 522–9.
14. Bailey HR, Huval WV, Max E et al. Local excision of carcinoma of the rectum for cure. Surgery 1992; 111(5): 555–61.
15. Willett CG, Compton CC, Shellito PC et al. Selection factors
for local excision or abdominoperineal resection of early stage
rectal cancer. Cancer 1994; 73(11): 2716–20.
16. Mendenhall WM, Morris CG, Rout WR et al. Local excision
and postoperative radiation therapy for rectal adenocarcinoma. Int J Cancer 2001; 96(Suppl): 89–96.
17. Winde G, Nottberg H, Keller R et al. Surgical cure for early
rectal carcinomas (T1). Transanal endoscopic microsurgery
vs. anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum 1996; 39(9): 969–76.
18. Floyd ND, Saclarides TJ. Transanal endoscopic microsurgical resection of pT1 rectal tumors. Dis Colon Rectum 2006;
49(2): 164–8.
19. Lezoche G, Baldarelli M, Guerrieri M et al. A prospective ran-A prospective randomized study with a 5-year minimum follow-up evaluation
of transanal endoscopic microsurgery vs. laparoscopic total
mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant therapy. Surg Endosc
2008; 22(2): 352–8.
20. Lee W, Lee D, Choi S et al. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery for T1 and T2 rectal cancer. Surg
Endosc 2003; 17(8): 1283–7.
21. Borschitz T, Heintz A, Junginger T. Transanal endoscopic
microsurgical excision of pT2 rectal cancer: results and possible indications. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50(3): 292–301.
22. Casadesus D. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a review.
Endoscopy 2006; 38(4): 418–23.
23. Klaue HJ, Bauer E. Retroperitoneal phlegmon after transanal
endoscopic microsurgical excision of rectal adenoma. Chirurg
1997; 68(1): 84–6.
24. Mentges B, Buess G, Schafer D et al. Local therapy of rectal
tumors. Dis Col Rectum 1996; 39(8): 886–92.
25. Kennedy ML, Lubowski DZ, King DW. Transanal endoscopic
microsurgery: is anorectal function compromised? Dis Colon
Rectum 2002; 45(5): 601–4.
26. Cataldo PA, O’Brien S, Osler T. Transanal endoscopic
microsurgery—a prospective evaluation of functional
results. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48(7): 1366–71.
27. Moore JS, Cataldo PA, Osler T et al. Transanal endoscopic
microsurgery is more effective than traditional transanal
excision for resection of rectal masses. Dis Colon Rectum
2008; 51(7): 1026–30.
28. Doornebosch PG, Tollenaar RA, Gosselink MP et al. Quality
of life after transanal endoscopic microsurgery and total
mesorectal excision in early rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis
2007; 9(6): 553–8.
29. Lee WY, Lee WS, Yun SH et al. Decision for salvage treatment
after transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Surg Endosc 2007;
21(6): 975–9.
30. Baron PL, Enker WE, Zakowski MF et al. Immediate vs. salvage resection after local treatment for early rectal cancer.
Dis Colon Rectum 1995; 38(2): 177–81.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
