Ajit Pai

Oncologic and Clinicopathologic Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery is challenging and technically difficult. Robotic technology offers a stable surgical platform with magnified 3-dimensional vision and endowristed instruments, which may facilitate the minimally invasive procedure. Data on short-term and long-term outcomes indicate results comparable to laparoscopic and open surgery. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. DESIGN: This study was a review of a prospective database of patients over a 7-year period. SETTINGS: Procedures took place in the colorectal division at a tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: From August 2005 to October 2012, 101 patients with rectal cancer were operated on using the robotic approach. Rectal cancers were defined as tumors within 15 cm from the anal verge. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either a totally robotic or a hybrid laparoscopic-robotic operation with rectal dissection performed robotically. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative and perioperative data, pathologic outcomes, and disease-free and overall survival were examined. RESULTS: There were 63 men (62.4%) and 38 women (37.6%) in the study; the mean age was 61.5 years. Mid rectal and low rectal cancers composed 74.2% of cases. Preoperative chemoradiation was given to 74.3% of patients. Four conversions to open surgery occurred. Circumferential margin positivity was 5%, and median lymph node yield was 15. At a mean follow-up of 34.9 months, the disease-free survival was 79.2% and overall survival 90.1%. The mean cost of robotic surgery was

Should anastomotic assessment with flexible sigmoidoscopy be routine following laparoscopic restorative left colorectal resection

22,640 versus

Current status of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A bird's eye view

18,330 for the hand-assisted laparoscopic approach (p = 0.005). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-institution study with no head-to-head comparative group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery for rectal cancer extirpation is safe and feasible. It has a low conversion rate, satisfies all measures of pathologic adequacy, and offers acceptable oncologic outcomes. Robotic surgery is significantly more expensive than hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery. The absence of randomized data limits recommending it as the standard of care at present.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: Save the Nerves and Urethra.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the value of routine intra‐operative flexible sigmoidoscopy (IOFS) for left‐sided anastomotic integrity and to determine the safest step after a positive leak test.

Persistent Asymptomatic Anastomotic Leakage After Laparoscopic Sphincter-Saving Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Can Diverting Stoma Be Reversed Safely at 6 Months?

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach and has been validated in randomized controlled trials to be oncologically safe with better perioperative outcomes than open surgery including shorter length of stay, earlier return of bowel function, better cosmesis, and less analgesic requirement. Laparoscopic surgery, however, has inherent limitations due to two-dimensional vision, restricted instrument motion and a very long learning curve. Robotic surgery with its superb three-dimensional magnified optics, stable retraction platform and 7 degrees of freedom of instrument movement offers significant benefits during Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) including ease of operation, markedly lower conversion rates and better quality of the specimen in addition to shorter (steeper) learning curves. This review summarizes the current evidence for the adoption of robotic TME for rectal cancer with supporting data from the literature and from the authors′ own experience. All relevant articles from PubMed using the search terms listed below and published between 2000 and 2014 including randomized trials, meta-analyses, prospective studies, and retrospective reviews with substantial numbers were included.

Role of epidural and patient-controlled analgesia in site-specific laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

this technique, as any other technique, is clean, precise, bloodless, and meticulous dissection based on the anatomical landmarks and tissue planes, with minimal morbidity and low incidence of margin positivity. Knowledge of surgical and tumor anatomy cannot be emphasized more, and a lack of it is very unforgiving when rectal cancer is considered. despite significant research and experience gained in the area of pelvic anatomy, a large amount of confusion and imprecision still exists. in the past, the deep pelvic autonomic nervous system (below the hypogastric nerves) was rarely identified properly during pelvic dissections. this article describes the relevant details of the autonomic nervous system and urethra in men encountered during the transanal tME (tatME). in addition, comments are made on the future of the technique.

Robot-assisted Abdominoperineal Resection: Clinical, Pathologic, and Oncologic Outcomes

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery raises the problem of the timing of diverting stoma reversal. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether stoma reversal can be safely performed at 6 months after laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer with total mesorectal excision in patients with persistent asymptomatic anastomotic leakage. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective database. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary colorectal surgery referral center. PATIENTS: All of the patients with anastomotic leakage were treated conservatively after sphincter-saving laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main study measure was postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: A total of 110 (26%) of 429 patients who presented with anastomotic leakage and were treated conservatively were diagnosed only on CT scan (60 symptomatic (14%) and 50 asymptomatic (12%)). During follow up, 82 (75%) of 110 anastomotic leakages healed spontaneously after a mean delay of 16 ± 6 weeks (range, 4–30 weeks). Among these patients, 7 (9%) of 82 developed postoperative symptomatic pelvic sepsis after stoma reversal. Among the 28 patients remaining, 3 died during follow-up. The remaining 25 patients (23%) presented with persistent asymptomatic anastomotic leakage with chronic sinus >6 months after rectal surgery. Stoma reversal was performed in 19 asymptomatic patients, but 3 (16%) of 19 developed postoperative symptomatic pelvic sepsis after stoma reversal (3/19 vs 7/82 patients; p = 0.217), requiring a redo surgery with transanal colonic pull-through and delayed coloanal anastomosis (n = 2) or standard coloanal anastomosis (n = 1). Regarding the 6 final patients, abdominal redo surgery was performed because of either symptoms or anastomotic leakage with a large presacral cavity. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: In the great majority of patients with persistent anastomotic leakage at 6 months after total mesorectal excision, stoma reversal can be safely performed.BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery raises the problem of the timing of diverting stoma reversal. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether stoma reversal can be safely performed at 6 months after laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer with total mesorectal excision in patients with persistent asymptomatic anastomotic leakage. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective database. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary colorectal surgery referral center. PATIENTS: All of the patients with anastomotic leakage were treated conservatively after sphincter-saving laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main study measure was postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: A total of 110 (26%) of 429 patients who presented with anastomotic leakage and were treated conservatively were diagnosed only on CT scan (60 symptomatic (14%) and 50 asymptomatic (12%)). During follow up, 82 (75%) of 110 anastomotic leakages healed spontaneously after a mean delay of 16 ± 6 weeks (range, 4–30 weeks). Among these patients, 7 (9%) of 82 developed postoperative symptomatic pelvic sepsis after stoma reversal. Among the 28 patients remaining, 3 died during follow-up. The remaining 25 patients (23%) presented with persistent asymptomatic anastomotic leakage with chronic sinus >6 months after rectal surgery. Stoma reversal was performed in 19 asymptomatic patients, but 3 (16%) of 19 developed postoperative symptomatic pelvic sepsis after stoma reversal (3/19 vs 7/82 patients; p = 0.217), requiring a redo surgery with transanal colonic pull-through and delayed coloanal anastomosis (n = 2) or standard coloanal anastomosis (n = 1). Regarding the 6 final patients, abdominal redo surgery was performed because of either symptoms or anastomotic leakage with a large presacral cavity. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: In the great majority of patients with persistent anastomotic leakage at 6 months after total mesorectal excision, stoma reversal can be safely performed.

Perineal proctectomy with bio-thiersch procedure for complete rectal prolapse with fecal incontinence.

Background and Objectives: Limited data are available comparing epidural and patient-controlled analgesia in site-specific colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate 2 modes of analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy (RC) and low anterior resection (LAR). Methods: Prospectively collected data on 433 patients undergoing laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted colon surgery at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed from March 2004 to February 2009. Patients were divided into groups undergoing RC (n = 175) and LAR (n = 258). These groups were evaluated by use of analgesia: epidural analgesia, “patient-controlled analgesia” alone, and a combination of both. Demographic and perioperative outcomes were compared. Results: Epidural analgesia was associated with a faster return of bowel function, by 1 day (P < .001), in patients who underwent LAR but not in the RC group. Delayed return of bowel function was associated with increased operative time in the LAR group (P = .05), patients with diabetes who underwent RC (P = .037), and patients after RC with combined analgesia (P = .011). Mean visual analogue scale pain scores were significantly lower with epidural analgesia compared with patient-controlled analgesia in both LAR and RC groups (P < .001). Conclusion: Epidural analgesia was associated with a faster return of bowel function in the laparoscopic LAR group but not the RC group. Epidural analgesia was superior to patient-controlled analgesia in controlling postoperative pain but was inadequate in 28% of patients and needed the addition of patient-controlled analgesia.

Spontaneous ureterocolic fistula secondary to diverticulitis: report of a case and review of literature.

BACKGROUND: The extralevator approach to abdominoperineal resection is associated with a decreased incidence of rectal perforation and circumferential resection margin positivity translating to lower recurrence rates. The abdominoperineal resection, as such, is an operation associated with poorer outcomes in comparison with low anterior resections, and any improvements in short-term outcomes are likely to be related to surgical technique. Robot assistance in extralevator abdominoperineal resection has shown improvement in these pathologic outcomes. Because these are surrogate markers for local recurrence and disease-free survival, long-term survival data are needed to assess the efficacy of this robot-assisted technique, exclusively in a dedicated abdominoperineal resection cohort. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes of the robot-assisted extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. DESIGN: This study was a review of a prospective database of patients over a 5-year period. SETTING: Procedures were performed in the colorectal division of a tertiary hospital from April 2007 to July 2012. PATIENTS: Patients with rectal cancer were operated on robotically. Indications for abdominoperineal resection were low rectal cancers invading the sphincter complex or location in the anal canal precluding anastomosis. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received a robot-assisted extralevator abdominoperineal resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative and perioperative measures, pathologic outcomes, and disease-free survival and overall survival were documented and assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (15 men) with a mean age of 65.5 years and mean BMI of 28.6 kg/m2 underwent robotic abdominoperineal resection. Circumferential resection margin was positive in 13.6%. There was 1 tumor/rectal perforation. At a mean follow-up of 33.9 months, overall survival was 81.8% with a disease-free survival of 72.7%. Local recurrence was 4.5%. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-institution study with no comparative open or laparoscopic group. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection is safe, feasible, and oncologically sound with short-term and long-term outcomes comparable to open and laparoscopic surgery.

Robot-assisted approach to a retrorectal lesion in an obese female

Rectal prolapse occurs in 1% of adults over the age of 65 with fecal incontinence (fi) as the predominant symptom in 50% to 75% of cases. the thiersch procedure was first described in 1891 as a treatment for rectal prolapse with the use of a silver wire to encircle the anus. thiersch procedures are not popular owing to the complications from the use of nonabsorbable material, failure of the sling, fecal impaction, recurrence of the prolapse, and incontinence. Biological meshes as distinct from nonabsorbable materials are safer and effective in their use to reinforce tissues in the anorectal area. this video demonstrates a bio-thiersch procedure using biological mesh as an adjunct to perineal proctectomy in a patient with procidentia and moderate fi (see Video, supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links. lww.com/DCR/a179). the rationale is a combined procedure in a group of patients prone to the recurrence of prolapse by either technique. the exact effect on fi, however, can only be determined on long-term follow-up in a prospective study. a sacral nerve stimulator procedure is an option for persistent or worsening fi after a perineal proctectomy alone. the approach involves completing a standard perineal proctectomy, then performing a bio-thiersch procedure. Patients gave their consent and were operated on after bowel preparation and 1 g of ertapenem for prophylaxis. a biological mesh rolled into a 1-cm-diameter cylinder is sutured by using 2-0 polydioxanone. the anus is encircled by the use of blunt dissection to create a deep tunnel away from the external sphincter at the level of the ischiorectal fossae by using 3 incisions. the cylinder is passed through the tunnel to surround the anus. the cylinder ends are sutured at the appropriate tension, ensuring a patent anal passage, and internalized. We have used porcine dermal matrix (easy to handle, but disintegrated early once) and bovine pericardium (retained longer, but difficult to handle). the ideal biological mesh for use and long-term outcomes needs further research.