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_1375_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
25 Transanal TME: Why GoBottom-Up!
Fig. 25.1 Key operative steps to transanal total mesorectal excision
277
A circumferential distal purse string is placed at the start of the operation ensuring an adequate distal margin. The purse string must provide a tight seal to fully
occlude the lumen throughout the operation, thus avoiding colonic insufation and
pelvic contamination by faecal spillage. In case the distal margin of the tumour is
within 2cm from the puborectal sling, another approach will be required: a mucosectomy and partial or complete intersphincteric dissection.
A full-thickness rectotomy is performed next by dissecting in a circle at the
extremities of the radial folds formed by the purse string. The pneumopelvis created
by the insufation system through the transanal platform can be increased from an
initial pressure of 8–10 mmHg to 10–15 mmHg, which will provide optimal distension as well as ‘pneumo-dissection’ to open up the plane. Dissection along the
mesorectal ‘holy’ plane, found between the parietal endopelvic fascia and mesorectal envelope, can then proceed, starting around 5 or 7 o’clock and then joining at the
posterior midline through the brotic raphe. TME dissection should continue in a
cylindrical manner, alternating between posterior, anterior, and lateral dissection
whilst advancing up the pelvis. This proposed sequence of dissection helps to prevent veering too laterally into the pelvic sidewall and injuring the neurovascular
bundles. Likewise, the steep sacral angle must be acknowledged and followed in
order to avoid creating defects in the mesorectum or even a rectal tube perforation
by dissecting along a horizontal line from the anus. On the contrary, dissecting too
posteriorly can lead to signicant bleeding from presacral vessels. The most important structure anteriorly in males is the membranous urethra, which can be injured
if dissecting too anteriorly or by inadvertently mobilising the prostate downwards.
To avoid unstabilising the pneumoperitoneum and draining uid obscuring the
perineal team’s view, connection between the abdominal and transanal teams should
occur once the anterior and posterior dissections are almost complete. The two
teams will be able to work together, guiding each other to dissect along the correct
remaining planes. The fully mobilised rectal specimen can be extracted either transanally or transabdominally. Transanal extraction should not be attempted with very
bulky tumours due to the risk of specimen rupture or if too much tension is placed
on the colonic mesentery.
A handsewn coloanal or stapled colorectal anastomosis can be formed with the
open distal stump. Four anastomotic techniques (one handsewn and three stapled)
have been described with suggestions as to which technique to use depending on the
length of the anal/rectal stump and thickness of the tissues [22]. Whichever method
278
M. Penna and R. Hompes
is performed, the key principles for a reliable anastomosis are unchanged, including
a tension- free, well-vascularised anastomosis. According to a recent systematic
review, splenic exure mobilisation was completed in approximately 90% of cases,
whilst 98% had a defunctioning stoma formed [21].
More advances and modications to the taTME technique are continuously
being proposed, which, together with the creation of new bespoke equipment, are
likely to lead to further improvements in this eld.
Morbidity andMortality Results
Two recently published systematic reviews on taTME found that perioperative mortality and morbidity was generally well reported [20, 21]. Similis etal. [20] reported
on 37 studies (9 case reports, 24 case series and 4 comparative studies) with a total
of 510 participants in his review, whilst Arunachalam etal. [21] included the largest
cohort of 140 patients by Lacy etal. [23] together with another 14 predominantly
retrospective studies involving 449 patients. The overall procedure-associated morbidity was 34% with a 30-day mortality rate of <1%, with results comparable to
those reported for laparoscopic TME [4, 5]. The mean operative time ranged from
143 to 450 min, with 12 (2.3%) conversions to open surgery reported [20]. The
causes for conversion were posterior xity of the tumour, intra-abdominal adhesions after previous laparotomy, a bulky high tumour, technical difculties in obese
patients and a urethral injury. Three intra-operative urethral injuries were reported,
two of which were sutured transanally with no further consequences [24, 25]. It is
important to acknowledge risks associated with specic procedures, such as the
initially unexpected urethral injury in taTME as well as the risk of rectal perforation, bladder/ureteric injury, prostatic bleeding, injury to neurovascular bundles and
vaginal perforation. Effective training and awareness of features suggesting that the
incorrect plane has been entered are vital in minimising such risks.
The reoperation rate was between 3.7 and 9.1% with an anastomotic leak rate of
6.1–9.1% [24, 25]. Unplanned return to the operating room occurred due to presacral abscesses requiring drainage, small bowel obstruction, anastomotic leaks and
ischemic colon. The mean length of hospital stay reported by the included studies
ranged from 4.3 to 16.6days.
The international taTME registry collaborative has recently published the largest
cohort to date including 720 taTME cases [26]. The majority of patients were male
(68%) with a mean age of 62.4years and BMI of 26.5kg/m
height from anorectal junction on MRI was 3cm, and 57% received neoadjuvant
therapy. The overall morbidity and mortality rates at 30days were 33% and 0.5%,
respectively. Reassuringly, the anastomotic leak rate was 5.4% (32 cases); however,
ve intra-operative urethral injuries occurred. These registry cases included the
experience of the pioneers and early adopters of taTME; together they encourage all
surgeons who wish to adopt this technique to receive appropriate training and education. Table 25.2 summarises key post-operative and histological outcomes
reported in the largest cohorts of patients published so far.
2
. The median tumour
25 Transanal TME: Why GoBottom-Up!
279
Table 25.2 Comparative clinicopathological outcomes for series describing over 50 taTME cases
of rectal cancer
Veltcamp
Lacy etal. [23]
Helbach etal.
[48]
Tuech etal.
[30]
Burke etal.
[49]
Number of patients 140 80 56 50
Study period October
2011–November
2014
June 2012–
September
2014
February
2010–June
2012
March
2012–July
2015
Patient and tumour characteristics
Gender, M:F 89:51 48:32 41:15 30:20
Age, mean±SD or
65.5±12.7 66.5 (42–86) 65 (39–83) 56.5 (50–65)
median (range), years
Body mass index,
mean±SD or
median (range), kg/
2
m
Tumour height on
MRI, mean±SD or
25.2±3.9 27.5(19.5–40) 27 (20–42) 26.0
(22.7–31.2)
From AV,
7.6±3.6
From dentate
line, 5.3 (1–10)
From AV, 4.0
(0–5.0)
From AV, 4.4
(3.0–5.5)
median (range), cm
Pre-operative T
stage, n (%)
T1–2
29 (20.7)
90 (64.3)
11 (7.9)
All T2 or T3 10 (17.9)
44 (78.5)
2 (3.6)
7 (14)
35 (70)
8 (16)
T3
T4
Received
94 (67.1) 65 (81.3) 47 (84) 43 (86)
neoadjuvant therapy,
n (%)
Clinical outcomes
Total operative time,
166 (60–360) 204 (91–447) 270 (150–495) 267 (227–331)
median (range),
minutes
Conversions, n (%) 0 – 3 (7.3) 1 (2.2)
Overall morbidity at
34 39 26 36
30days, %
Overall mortality at
0 1 (1.2) 0 0
30days, n (%)
Anastomotic leak, % 12 (8.6) – 3 (5.4) 3 (6)
Unplanned
12 (8.6) 9 (11.3) – 6 (12)
re-operations, %
Length of hospital
6 (3–39) 8 (3–41) 10 (6–21) 4.5 (4–8)
stay, median (range),
days
Histological outcomes
Positive CRM, n (%) 9 (6.4) 2 (2.5)
a
3 (5.4) 2 (4)
Positive DRM, n (%) 0 0 0 1 (2)
(continued)
280
Table 25.2 (continued)
Veltcamp
Helbach etal.
Lacy etal. [23]
TME quality, n (%)
Complete
Nearly complete
Incomplete
Number of lymph
nodes, mean±SD or
median (range)
Recurrence rate, n
(%)
Local 1 (0.8) 2 (2.5) 1 (1.7) 2 (4)
Distant 8 (6.1) – – 7 (15)
Both local and
distant
AV anal verge, CRM circumferential resection margin
a
Positive CRM dened as tumour present <2mm instead of <1mm
136 (97.1)
3 (2.1)
1 (0.7)
14.7±6.8 14 (6–30) 12 (7–29) 18 (12–24)
Median
15months
2 (1.5) – – –
[48]
71 (88.7)
7 (8.8)
2 (2.5)
Mean
21months
M. Penna and R. Hompes
Tuech etal.
[30]
47 (84)
9 (16)
0
Median
29months
Burke etal.
[49]
36 (72)
13 (26)
1 (2)
Median
15months
Oncological Outcomes
The aim of an oncological resection for rectal cancer is to obtain a good-quality
intact TME specimen, as described by Quirke etal. [27], as well as negative circumferential (CRM) and distal resection margins (DRM). One of the pioneers of taTME,
Professor Antonio Lacy, recently published his initial 140 cases and achieved a
complete TME specimen in over 97% of cases with a positive CRM of 6.4% and
early recurrence rate of <3% over a mean follow-up period of 15months [23]. In the
systematic review by Similis etal. [20] that included 510 patients, the mesorectum
was described as complete or nearly complete in 88% and 6%, respectively, whilst
the CRM was negative in 95% and DRM negative in 99.7%. The international registry data [26] included 634 cancer cases and also showed promising results with
low CRM positivity and good-quality TME specimens in 2.4% and 96%, respectively. Further analysis by multivariate logistic regression identied three factors
that signicantly increased the risk of obtaining poor histological features (R1, rectal perforation and poor TME quality): (1) low tumour height of <2cm from anorectal junction, (2) positive CRM on staging MRI and (3) more extensive posterior
pelvic dissection performed abdominally. Direct visualisation of the tumour prior to
placing the distal purse string at the start of the taTME procedure explains the low
rates of positive DRM.Better visualisation of the anatomy and hence more accurate
dissection are likely to be the main reasons for obtaining such reassuring CRM rates
and good-quality TME specimens, especially when the majority of cases included
were overweight male patients with T3 tumours. Such results compare favourably
to those reported for open and laparoscopic TME, with an overall positive CRM rate
of 16% and 10% in the CLASSIC [4] and COLOR II [5] trials, respectively. Even
25 Transanal TME: Why GoBottom-Up!
the two most recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic to
open surgery for rectal cancer, ACOSOG Z6051 [28] and ALaCaRT [29], could not
demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic TME over open TME for histopathological outcomes and morbidity. The positive CRM rate for laparoscopic versus
open TME surgery in these trials was 7–12.1% vs. 3–7.7%, respectively.
Tuech etal. [30] published recurrence rates and survival for one of the longest
follow-up periods, with a median of 29 (18–52) months, reporting an overall survival rate of 96.4%, disease-free survival rate of 94.2% and local recurrence rate of
1.7%. Metastatic disease was diagnosed after surgery in 2 out of 52 patients (3.8%).
Further studies on long-term oncological outcomes are pending.
281
Quality ofLife andFunctional Outcomes
Injury to the pelvic hypogastric or sacral splanchnic nerves is a recognised complication of rectal resection and can lead to urinary and sexual dysfunction [31, 32]. The
incidences of urinary and sexual dysfunction after laparoscopic or open TME have
been reported to be 0–26% and 11–38%, respectively [33–35]. One of the most common complications found in Similis etal.’s review was urinary retention and transient
urinary dysfunction following taTME at a rate of 5% [20]. Sylla etal. demonstrated
with urodynamic testing the presence of minimal detrusor activity secondary to parasympathetic nerve injury on their two cases of urinary dysfunction [36].
Four studies collected postoperative Wexner scores for bowel function over a
follow-up period ranging from 3 to 12months and found a mean score of 4.3 (good
function) [30, 37–39]. More detailed and longer-term functional outcomes and
quality of life questionnaires are still pending.
Evidence so far suggests that taTME may provide a better view for more accurate dissection of the ‘holy plane’, which subsequently protects the autonomic pelvic nerves, and therefore potentially has a lower incidence of urinary and sexual
dysfunction. However, longer-term results are still needed, and the effects of constant prolonged anal dilatation by both rigid and exible transanal platforms remain
to be explored.
Future oftaTME
As the interest and evidence for taTME continue to grow, so does the number of
surgeons wishing to learn this new technique. It is therefore vitally important to
ensure that adequate training is available with a system that fully supports surgeons
and allows a strong network of communication. The need to create a structured
educational curriculum for taTME was acknowledged and proposed at the rst
international taTME educational group meeting in the United Kingdom in October
2015 [40]. The educational group aims to broaden the knowledge in this eld by
sharing experiences amongst surgeons and facilitating international research
282
M. Penna and R. Hompes
collaborations. An interactive online website (www.tatme.com) has been launched
by the International taTME Educational Collaborative and provides valuable training material, up-to-date literature, access to the taTME registry and information on
upcoming taTME workshops [41].
The true benets and risks of taTME now need to be conrmed in randomised
controlled trials. The rst to be initiated in Europe include the national multicentre
study in France called ETAP-GRECCAR 11 [42] and the international RCT COLOR
III [43]. Results from these studies will not be available for at least 3–5years but
will be eagerly awaited. During this time, however, taTME is likely to undergo further modications. Early studies have already shown promising results with the
application of the robot to the transanal component [38, 44–46]. Furthermore,
Atallah etal. demonstrated the feasibility of using intra-operative CT-guided navigation for the rst case of frameless stereotactic navigation in transanal rectal surgery [47]. The expanding eld of surgical innovation and development is likely to
introduce even more specialised equipment and adjuncts to the ‘standard’ taTME
technique, making this a truly exciting journey to follow and be part of.
In conclusion, the strive to obtain better oncological resections with less functional compromise has led to the fascinating evolution of rectal cancer surgery.
taTME resulted from the combination of various minimally invasive approaches
and detailed preliminary animal and cadaveric work. Results from large cohort studies and comparative studies so far are promising, although they do highlight the
importance of adequate training and experience in the new technique in order to
avoid unforeseen complications, namely, urethral injury. Results from the recently
started European RCTs will be eagerly awaited, as well as the latest innovative
advances in technology and innovation.
Disclosures None
Consent Written informed patient consent for the use of anonymised images in
research has been obtained.
References
1. Targarona EM, Balague C, Pernas JC, Martinez C, Berindoague R, Gich I, etal. Can we predict
immediate outcome after laparoscopic rectal surgery? Multivariate analysis of clinical, anatomic, and pathologic features after 3-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvic anatomy. Ann
Surg. 2008;247(4):642–9.
2. SJ O, Shin JY.Risk factors of circumferential resection margin involvement in the patients with
extraperitoneal rectal cancer. JKorean Surg Soc. 2012;82(3):165–71.
3. Cecil TD, Tafnder N, Gudgeon AM.A personal view on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.
Color Dis. 2006;8:30–2.
4. 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. JClin Oncol. 2007;25:3061–8.
25 Transanal TME: Why GoBottom-Up!
5. van der Pas MHGM, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Furst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, etal. Laparoscopic
versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomized, phase
3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:210–8.
6. Buess G, Theiss R, Hutterer F, Pichlmaier H, Pelz C, Holfeld T, etal. Transanal endoscopic surgery
of the rectum: testing a new method in animal experiments. Leber Magen Darm. 1983;13:73–7.
7. Marks JH, Frenkel JL, D’Andrea AP, Greenleaf CE.Maximizing rectal cancer results: TEM and
TATA techniques to expand sphincter preservation. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2011;20:501–20.
8. Rattner D, Kalloo A.ASGE/SAGES Working Group on natural orice transluminal endoscopic
surgery. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:329–33.
9. Whiteford MH, Denk PM, Swanstrom LL.Feasibility of radical sigmoid colectomy performed
as natural orice transluminal endoscopy surgery (NOTES) using transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1870–4.
10. Atallah S, Albert M, Larach S.Transanal minimally invasive surgery: a giant leap forward.
Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2200–5.
11. Buchs NC, Kraus R, Mortensen NJ, Cunningham C, George B, Jones O, etal. Endoscopically
assisted extralevator abdominoperineal excision. Color Dis. 2015;17(12):O277–80.
12. Liyanage C, Ramwell A, Harris GJ, Levy BF, Simson JN.Transanal endoscopic microsurgery:
a new technique for completion proctectomy. Color Dis. 2013;15(9):e542–7.
13. de Buck van Overstraeten A, Wolthuis AM, D’Hoore A.Transanal completion proctectomy
after total colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: a modied single
stapled technique. Color Dis. 2016;18(4):O141–4.
14. Motson RW, Whiteford MH, Hompes R, Albert M, Miles WF, Expert Group. Current status of
trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) following the Second International Consensus
Conference. Color Dis. 2016;18(1):13–18
15. Sylla P, Willingham FF, Sohn DK, Gee D, Brugge WR, Rattner DW.NOTES rectosigmoid
resection using transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with transgastric endoscopic assistance: a pilot study in swine. JGastrointest Surg. 2008;12:1717–23.
16. Trunzo JA, Delaney CP.Natural orice proctectomy using a transanal endoscopic microsurgi-
cal technique in a porcine model. Surg Innov. 2010;17:48–52.
17. Sylla P, Kim M, Dursun A, etal. NOTES rectosigmoid resection using transanal endoscopic
microsurgery (TEM): experience in human cadavers. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:640.
18. Sylla P, Rattner DW, Delgado S, Lacy AM.NOTES transanal rectal cancer resection using trans-
anal endoscopic microsurgery and laparoscopic assistance. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1205–10.
19. Leroy J, Barry BD, Melani A, Mutter D, Marescaux J.No-scar transanal total mesorectal exci-
sion: the last step to pure NOTES for colorectal surgery. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:226–30.
20. Similis C, Hompes R, Penna M, Rasheed S, Tekkis PPA. systematic review of transanal total
mesorectal excision: is this the future of rectal cancer surgery? Color Dis. 2015;18:19–36.
21. Arunachalam L, O’Grady H, Hunter IA, Killeen S.A systematic review of outcomes after
transanal mesorectal resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59:340–50.
22. Penna M, Knol KK, Tuynman JB, Tekkis PP, Mortensen NJ, Hompes R.Four anastomotic tech-
niques following transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20(3):
185–91.
23. Lacy AM, Tasende MM, Delgado S, Fernandez-Hevia M, Jimenez M, De Lacy B, etal.
Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: outcomes after 140 patients. JAm Coll
Surg. 2015;221(2):415–23.
24. Rouanet P, Mourregot A, Azar CC, Carrere S, Gutowski M, Quenet F, et al. Transanal endo-
scopic proctectomy: an innovative procedure for difcult resection of rectal tumors in men
with narrow pelvis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:408–15.
25. Schirnhofer J, Brunner E, Mittermair C, etal. Technical issues in transanal minimal invasive
surgery: total mesorectal excision (TAMIS-TME). Eur Surg. 2014;46:S58.
26. Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, TaTME Registry Collaborative, etal. Transanal total mesorec-
tal excision international registry results of the rst 720 cases. Ann Surg. 2016;266(1):111–7.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001948.
283
284
27. Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS.Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due
to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumor spread and surgical
excision. Lancet. 1986;2(8514):996–9.
28. Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, Am B, George V, Abbas M, etal. Effect of laparoscopic-
assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the
ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1346–55.
29. Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, etal. Effect of
laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer:
the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1356–63.
30. Tuech JJ, Karoui M, Lelong B, De Chaisemartin C, Bridoux V, Manceau G, etal. A step toward
NOTES total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: endoscopic transanal proctectomy. Ann
Surg. 2015;261:228–33.
31. Kim NK, Aahn TW, Park JK, Lee KY, Lee WH, Sohn SK, etal. Assessment of sexual and void-
ing function after total mesorectal excision with pelvic autonomic nerve preservation in males
with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:1178–85.
32. Morino M, Parini U, Allaix ME, Monasterolo G, Brachet Contul R, Garrone C.Male sexual and
urinary function after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1233–40.
33. Maurer CA.Urinary and sexual function after total mesorectal excision. Recent Results Cancer
Res. 2005;165:196–204.
34. Pocard M, Zinzindohoue F, Haab F, Caplin S, Parc R, Tiret E.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.
35. Quah HM, Jayne DG, Eu KW, Seow-Choen F. Bladder and sexual dysfunction following
laparoscopically assisted and conventional open mesorectal resection for cancer. Br J Surg.
2002;89:1551–6.
36. Sylla P, Bordeianou LG, Berger D, Han KS, Lauwers GY, Sahani DV, et al. A pilot study of
natural orice transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision with laparoscopic assistance for
rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3396–405.
37. Dumont F, Goéré D, Honoré C, Elias D.Transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision com-
bined with single-port laparoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:996–1001.
38. Gómez Ruiz M, Parra IM, Palazuelos CM, Martin JA, Fernandez CC, Diego CC, etal. Robotic-
assisted laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective pilot
study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:145–53.
39. Elmore U, Fumagalli Romario U, Vignali A, Sosa MF, Angiolini MR, Rosati R.Laparoscopic
anterior resection with transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: preliminary experience and impact on postoperative bowel function. JLaparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015;
25:364–9.
40. Penna M, Hompes R, Mackenzie H, Carter F, Francis NK.First international training and assess-
ment consensus workshop on transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). Tech Coloproctol.
2016;20(6):343–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1454-2.
41. International taTME Educational Collaborative website, available at www.tatme.com. Accessed
20 Aug 2016.
42. ClinicalTrials.gov website. Evaluate efcacy, morbidity and functional outcome of endoscopic
transanal proctectomy vs standard transabdominal laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer
(ETAP). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02584985. Accessed 26 Aug 2016.
43. Deijen CL, Velthuis S, Tsai A, Mavroveli S, de Lange-Klerk ES, Sietses C, etal. COLOR
III: a multicentre randomized clinical trial comparing transanal TME versus laparoscopic
TME for mid and low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2015;30(8):3210–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00464-015-4615-x.
44. Atallah S, Nassif G, Polavarapu H, deBeche-Adams T, Ouyang J, Albert M, Larach S.Robotic-
assisted transanal surgery for total mesorectal excision (RATS-TME): a description of a novel
surgical approach with video demonstration. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17:441–7.
M. Penna and R. Hompes
25 Transanal TME: Why GoBottom-Up!
45. Gomez Ruiz M, Palazuelos CM, Martin Parra JI, Alonso Martin J, Cagigas Fernandez C, del
Castillo Diego J, etal. New technique of transanal proctectomy with completely robotic total
mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cir Esp. 2014;92:356–61.
46. Verheijen PM, Consten EC, Broeders IA.Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal
cancer: experience with a rst case. Int JMed Robot. 2014;10:423–6.
47. Atallah S, Nassif G, Larach S.Stereotactic nagivation for TAMIS-TME: opening the gateway
to frameless, image-guided abdominal and pelvic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:207–11.
48. Veltcamp Helback M, Deijen CL, Velthius S, Bonjer HJ, Tuynman JB, Sietses C.Transanal
total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma: short-term outcomes and experience after 80
cases. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(2):464–70.
49. Burke JP, Martin-Perez B, Khan A.Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: early
outcomes in 50 consecutive patients. Color Dis. 2016;18(6):570–7.
285
Part VIII
Sphincter-Preserving Strategies for Low Rectal
Cancer