Search

Background: Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is an advanced local excision platform that helps overcome technical limitations and morbidity associated with other resection methods. Our goal was to review the indications and outcomes of TAMIS in a large series., Study Design: A review of a prospective database identified patients who underwent TAMIS from 2010 to 2014. Demographic, perioperative, short-term outcomes, and recurrence data were analyzed., Results: There were 75 patients with 76 lesions analyzed. Mean age was 64.0 years (SD 11.6 years) and mean BMI was 27.4 kg/m(2) (SD 4.7 kg/m(2)). Median American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score was 2 (range 1 to 4). There were 59 benign (77.3%) and 17 malignant (22.7%) lesions: 6 pT0, 6 pT1, 4 pT2, and 1 pT3. Median lesion distance from the anal verge was 10 cm (range 6 to 16 cm). Mean operative time was 76.0 minutes (SD 36.1 minutes). Three patients had intraperitoneal entry; all were closed transanally, but 2 had temporary diverting ileostomies fashioned to ensure healing. Median length of stay was 1 day (range 0 to 6). One patient had a fragmented lesion (1.3%). Five patients had positive margins: 2 in palliative pT2 resections, and 3 in pT1, pT2, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients. They were managed with radical resection (pT1 and pT2 lesions) and surveillance/medical oncology (GIST). Postoperatively, 3 patients had complications (bleeding, rectal stricture, and recto-vaginal fistula), and all were managed nonoperatively. After median follow-up of 39.5 months (range 10.5 to 65.3 months), 1 pT1 patient with negative margins developed a local recurrence and underwent salvage APR., Conclusions: Transanal minimally invasive surgery is a viable option for excision of benign or early stage rectal masses, with mid-term oncologic outcomes comparable to those of radical resection. Further, TAMIS minimizes the morbidity and can allow more patients to benefit from the minimally invasive approach., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many benefits of minimally invasive surgery are lost in the obese, but robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) may offer advantages in this population. Our goal was to compare outcomes for RALS in obese and non-obese patients., Methods: A prospective database was reviewed for colorectal resections using RALS. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)), then case-matched for comparability. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates between groups., Results: Forty-five patients were evaluated in each cohort. The BMI was significantly different (p < 0.01). All other demographics were well matched. There were no significant differences in operative time (p = 0.86), blood loss (p = 0.38), intraoperative complications (p = 0.54), or conversion rates (p = 0.91) across cohorts. Length of stay was comparable between groups (p = 0.45). Postoperatively, the complication (p = 0.87), readmission (p = 1.00), and reoperation rates (p = 0.95) were similar. There were no mortalities. For malignant cases (37.8 %), the lymph node yield (p = 0.48) and positive margins (p = 1.00) were similar and acceptable in both cohorts., Conclusions: In our matched RALS series, perioperative and postoperative outcomes were similar between obese and non-obese patients undergoing colorectal surgery. RALS is a feasible option in the surgical setting of the obese patient. Further controlled studies are warranted to explore the full benefits.

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS offers several patient-related benefits over multiport laparoscopy. However, its use in obese patients has been limited from concerns of technical difficulty, oncologic compromise, and higher complication and conversion rates. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of SILS for colectomy in obese patients., Methods: Review of a prospective database identified patients undergoing elective colectomy using SILS from 2009 to 2014. They were stratified into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) and then matched on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and operative procedure. Demographic and perioperative outcome data were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of stay (LOS), and conversion, complication, and readmission rates for each cohort., Results: A total of 160 patients were evaluated-80 in each cohort. Patients were well matched in demographics, diagnosis, and procedure variables. The obese cohort had significantly higher BMI (p < 0.001) and ASA scores (p = 0.035). Operative time (176.9 ± 64.0 vs. 144.4 ± 47.2 min, p < 0.001) and estimated blood loss (89.0 ± 139.5 vs. 51.6 ± 38.0 ml, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the obese. There were no significant differences in conversion rates (p = 0.682), final incision length (p = 0.088), LOS (p = 0.332), postoperative complications (p = 0.430), or readmissions (p = 1.000) in the obese versus non-obese. Further, in malignant cases, lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.757) and negative distal margins (p = 1.000) were comparable across cohorts., Conclusions: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients had significantly longer operative times, but comparable conversion rates, oncologic outcomes, lengths of stay, complication, and readmission rates as the non-obese cohorts. In the obese, where higher morbidity rates are typically associated with surgical outcomes, SILS may be the ideal platform to optimize outcomes in colorectal surgery. With additional operative time, the obese can realize the same clinical and quality benefits of minimally invasive surgery as the non-obese.

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive platform with specific benefits over traditional multiport laparoscopic surgery. The safety and feasibility of SILS has been proven, and the applications continue to grow with experience. After 500 cases at a high-volume, single-institution, we were able to standardize instrumentation and operative steps, as well as develop adaptations in technique to help overcome technical and ergonomic challenges. These technical adaptations have allowed the successful application of SILS to technically difficult patient populations, such as pelvic cases, inflammatory bowel disease cases, and high body mass index patients. This review is a frame of reference for the application and wider integration of the single incision laparoscopic platform in colorectal surgery.

As surgical techniques continue to move towards less invasive techniques, single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), a hybrid between traditional multiport laparoscopy and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, was introduced to further the enhanced outcomes of multiport laparoscopy. The safety and feasibility of SILS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease has been proven. SILS provides the potential for improved cosmesis, postoperative pain, recovery time, and quality of life at the drawback of higher technical skill required. In this article, we review the history, describe the available technology and techniques, and evaluate the benefits and limitations of SILS for colorectal surgery in the published literature.

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS has comparable or improved outcomes compared to multiport laparoscopy but technical limitations when operating in the pelvis. To address these limitations, we developed an innovative SILS+1 approach using a single Pfannenstiel incision for pelvis access with one additional umbilical port. Our goal was to compare outcomes for SILS and SILS+1 in lower abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery., Methods: Review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent an elective reduced port laparoscopic lower abdominal/pelvic colorectal procedure from 2009 to 2014. Cases were stratified by approach: SILS versus SILS+1 then matched 1:2 on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, and procedure. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative outcome variables were evaluated. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay, complication, morbidity, and mortality rates., Results: One hundred thirty-two reduced port AR/LAR patients were evaluated-44 SILS and 88 SILS+1. The groups were similar in age, gender, BMI, and ASA class. The primary diagnosis in both cohorts was diverticulitis (90.9 % SILS, 87.5 % SILS+1), and main procedure performed an anterior rectosigmoidectomy (86.4 % SILS, 88.2 % SILS+1). Significantly more SILS+1 patients had previous abdominal surgery (p = 0.01). The operative time was significantly shorter in SILS+1 (mean 166.6 [SD 48.4] vs. 178.0 [SD 70.0], p = 0.03). The conversion rate to multiport or open surgery was also significantly lower with SILS+1 compared to SILS (1.1 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.02). Postoperatively, the length of stay across the groups was similar. SILS trended towards higher complication and readmission rates (NS). There were no unplanned reoperations or mortality in either group., Conclusions: SILS+1 facilitates pelvic and lower abdominal colorectal surgery, with shorter operative times and lower conversion rates. The additional port improved visualization and outcomes without any impact on length of stay, readmission, or complication rates.

Although it has been almost a decade since the implementation of robotic colorectal surgery, this modality remains under development. The aim of this study is to briefly describe, based on a literature review, the current role of robotic surgery of the colon and rectum. This emerging technique has revealed some benefits such as an improvement in visualization in 3D, image magnification up to 10 times the actual size, and better maneuverability with wrist-like movements offered by the da Vinci® Surgical System. This system is composed of the robotic console in which the surgeon performs the movements to be accomplished by the robot. The latter presents up to three articulated arms for instrumentation as well as the camera arm. Even though the safety and feasibility of robotic colon surgery has been demonstrated, there is no complete manifestation of the advantages of this technique due to the wide surgical field in the abdominal cavity and freedom of movement achieved with other minimally invasive techniques. Robotic rectal surgery represents a different scenario since the advantages of the da Vinci® system are maximally expressed in the confined pelvic cavity. Consequently, in some specialized centers, the robotic modality represents the first therapeutic choice for resectable rectal cancer. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy has demonstrated to be a feasible and safe approach in colorectal surgery and presents some advantages over other techniques in regards to perioperative outcomes. Nonetheless, costs and availability represent the main limitations of this technology.

Background: Obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) is recognized as a functional (e.g., anismus) and anatomic (e.g., rectocele and rectal intussusception) defecatory disorder of the pelvic floor. This study was designed to evaluate outcomes and patient satisfaction following stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) for the surgical treatment of ODS., Materials and Methods: Between May 2006 and July 2009, 37 patients underwent STARR for correction of ODS secondary to rectocele and internal intussusception. Demographic data and postoperative outcomes were tabulated. Symptomatic outcomes were assessed by comparing pre- and postoperative subsets of the Wexner constipation scoring system, and quality outcomes were evaluated with patient satisfaction surveys., Results: Thirty-seven female patients with a mean age of 52.9 ± 11.2 y underwent STARR. All patients had clinically significant rectocele as evidenced on defecography and 81.1% had concomitant internal rectal intussusception. Postoperative complications occurred in 13 patients (35.1%). Two of these patients required re-intervention: dilation of stricture and transanal excision of staple granuloma. Mean quality of life follow-up occurred at 20.3 ± 6.5 mo (median: 20 mo, range: 9-36 mo). Mean preoperative and postoperative constipation subset scores were 11.1 ± 3.6 and 4.6 ± 3.9, respectively (P < 0.00001). Overall outcome was reported as "excellent" or "good" in 71.9% of patients, "adequate" in 15.6%, and "poor" in 12.5%. When asked if they would undergo the procedure again, 81.3% responded affirmatively., Conclusions: The STARR procedure results in improved symptomatic outcomes, high patient satisfaction, and an acceptable complication rate. In selected patients, this minimally invasive approach was an acceptable procedure for the surgical correction of ODS secondary to rectocele and intussusception., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery is an emerging modality. We incorporated this technique as an alternative to hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery. We investigated intraoperative and short-term outcomes following single-incision laparoscopic colectomy compared with hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy., Methods: Between July and November 2009, single-incision colorectal procedures were performed and matched to hand-assisted procedures based on five criteria: gender, age, body mass index, pathology, and type of procedure. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were assessed., Results: Twenty-four pairs of patients with a mean age of 55.1 years and mean body mass index of 28.5 kg/m(2) were matched. The majority of cases (79.2%) were right hemicolectomies. The ranges of incision length were 2-6 cm (single incision) and 5-11 cm (hand-assisted). Mean operating time was significantly longer for single-incision procedures (143.2 min) compared with hand-assisted procedures (112.8 min), p < 0.0004. There was no significant difference in the groups regarding conversions or intraoperative complications (p < 0.083 and p < 1.0, respectively). Mean length of stay for the single-incision approach (2.7 days) was significantly shorter compared with the hand-assisted approach (3.3 days), p < 0.02., Conclusion: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy is a safe and feasible alternative to hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Although the technique required longer operative time, it resulted in smaller incision size and significantly shorter length of hospitalization.