Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques · 2013
Robotic-assisted transabdominal intersphincteric resection: a technique involving a completely abdominal approach and coloanal anastomosis.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАTechnical ReportНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Park Soo Yeun, Choi Gyu-Seog, Park Jun Seok, Kim Hye Jin, Choi Whon-Ho, Ryuk Jong Pil
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: As the use of a surgical robot allows for improved dexterity and visual field, we successfully conducted transabdominal intersphincteric resection (ISR) and perineal coloanal anastomosis for a very low lying rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of this procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients underwent robotic-assisted transabdominal ISR with coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancers. The surgical procedures included 5 steps: colonic mobilization with ligation of inferior mesenteric vessels, total mesorectal excision, intersphincteric dissection with rectal transection, specimen retrieval, and coloanal anastomosis.
RESULTS: The median operation time was 210 minutes, and the median estimated blood loss was 40.0 mL. The hypogastric nerve and pelvic nerve plexus was preserved in all patients. No intraoperative-related or robotic system-related morbidities were observed. In all patients, R0 resection was achieved, and the quality of the total mesorectal excision was optimal.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic transabdominal ISR is a safe operation with an expectation of future advances in pathologic quality and functional preservation. Additional work in a larger series of patients is necessary to refine this technique and to establish its efficacy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients underwent robotic-assisted transabdominal ISR with coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancers. The surgical procedures included 5 steps: colonic mobilization with ligation of inferior mesenteric vessels, total mesorectal excision, intersphincteric dissection with rectal transection, specimen retrieval, and coloanal anastomosis.
RESULTS: The median operation time was 210 minutes, and the median estimated blood loss was 40.0 mL. The hypogastric nerve and pelvic nerve plexus was preserved in all patients. No intraoperative-related or robotic system-related morbidities were observed. In all patients, R0 resection was achieved, and the quality of the total mesorectal excision was optimal.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic transabdominal ISR is a safe operation with an expectation of future advances in pathologic quality and functional preservation. Additional work in a larger series of patients is necessary to refine this technique and to establish its efficacy.