Transrectal Rigid-Hybrid Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticular Disease: A Prospective Cohort Study

Technical feasibility and perioperative outcome of laparoscopic resection rectopexy with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) and intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA)

Purpose

Laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy (LRR) is the most effective treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome but is associated with a higher postoperative morbidity compared to transanal approaches. Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) has been described as a promising technique to lower morbidity in colorectal cancer surgery. In this study, we analyze the technical challenges of adapting this technique to LRR and compare the perioperative results to the conventional laparoscopic technique with specimen extraction via minilaparotomy and extracorporeal anastomosis.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 45 patients who underwent laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy due to obstructive defecation syndrome at our institutions. From September 2020 to July 2021, we treated 17 consecutive patients with NOSE-LRR and compared the results to a historic cohort of 28 consecutive patients treated with conventional laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy plus minilaparotomy (LAP-LRR) for specimen extraction between January 2019 and July 2020. Assessed were patient- and disease-specific parameters, operative time, hospital and postoperative complications and subjective patient satisfaction after 6 months of follow-up.

Results

Both groups were comparable in terms of gender distribution, age, and comorbidities. The median operating time was similar and the perioperative morbidity was comparable in both groups. The length of stay in hospital was significantly shorter in the NOSE-LRR group (median 6 vs 8 days).

Conclusion

NOSE-LRR can be implemented safely, performed in a comparable operating time, and is associated with a comparable rate of postoperative complications. The technique offers the a potentially fast postoperative recovery compared to the conventional laparoscopic technique.

Robotic natural-orifice IntraCorporeal anastomosis with Extraction (NICE procedure) for complicated diverticulitis

Background

Totally intracorporeal surgery for left-sided resection carries numerous potential advantages by avoiding crossing staple lines and eliminating the need for an abdominal incision. For those with complicated diverticulitis, minimally invasive surgery is known to be technically challenging due to inflamed tissue, distorted pelvic anatomy, and obliterated tissue planes, resulting in high conversion rates. We aim to illustrate the stepwise approach and modifications required to successful complete the robotic Natural-orifice IntraCorporeal anastomosis with transrectal specimen Extraction (NICE) procedure in this cohort.

Methods

Consecutive, elective, unselected patients presenting with complicated diverticulitis defined as fistula, abscess and stricture underwent the NICE procedure over a 24-month period. Demographic and intraoperative data were collected, and video recordings were reviewed and edited on encrypted server.

Results

A total of 60 patients (50% female) underwent the NICE procedure for complicated diverticulitis with a mean age of 58.9 years and mean BMI of 30.7 kg/m². The mean operative time was 231.6 min. All cases (100%) were achieved with intracorporeal anastomosis using a circular stapling device. All but one patient (98.3%) had successful transrectal extraction of the specimen. Forty-four (73%) of the specimens required a specimen-thinning maneuver to successfully extract the specimen and there were no conversions. We identified seven key technical modifications and considerations to facilitate successful completion of the procedure which are illustrated, including early release of the disease, mesentery-sparing dissection, dual instrument control of the mesenteric vasculature, release of the rectal reflection, use of NICE back table, specimen-thinning maneuver, and closure of the rectal cuff.

Conclusion

We present a stepwise approach with key modifications to successfully achieve totally robotic intracorporeal resection for those presenting with complicated diverticulitis. This approach may help overcome the technical challenges and provide a foundation for reproducible results.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08350-z.

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic NOSE for sigmoid and rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery with natural orifice specimen extraction (La-NOSE) is being performed more frequently for the minimally invasive management of sigmoid and rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and oncological safety and efficacy of La-NOSE versus conventional laparoscopy (CL).

METHODS

A search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed for studies that compared clinical or oncological outcomes of conventional laparoscopic resection using NOSE with conventional laparoscopic resection for sigmoid and rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Compared with CL group, the length of hospital stay and the pain score on the first day were shorter in the La-Nose group. The La-NOSE group had a lower incidence of total perioperative complications (OR 0.46; 95% CI [0.32 to 0.66]; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) (OR 0.11; 95% CI [0.04 to 0.29]; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001) than the CL group, while the anastomotic leakage showed no significant difference between the La-Nose group and the CL group (P = 0.19). 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) were no significant difference between the La-Nose group and the CL group (P = 0.43, P = 0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

La-NOSE can achieve oncological and surgical safety comparable to that of CL for patients with sigmoid and rectal cancer. La-NOSE in patients was associated with a shorter hospital stay, shorter time to first flatus or defecation, less postoperative pain, and fewer surgical site infections (SSIs) and total perioperative complications. In general, the operative time in La-NOSE was longer than that in CL. The long-term oncological efficacy of La-NOSE seems to be equivalent to that of CL.

Randomized clinical trial on the use of a colon-occlusion device to assist rectal washout

Background

Transrectal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery is currently limited by the inherent risk of surgical site infection due to peritoneal contamination after rectotomy. Coloshield has been developed as a temporary colon occlusion device to facilitate rectal washout. However, effectiveness and safety has not been evaluated in humans.

Methods

Twenty-two patients have been randomly assigned to undergo proctological intervention with a rectal washout with and without the use of Coloshield. Patients and assessors were blinded. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) has been determined 30 min as well as immediately after rectal washout. Feasibility, pain, intra- and postoperative morbidity as well as bowel function and continence 6 weeks after surgery were assessed.

Results

BBPS 30 min after rectal washout with and without Coloshield was in mean 2.42 ± 1.02 and 2.12 ± 0.89 (p = 0.042). Mean BBPS immediately after rectal washout was 2.39 ± 1.02 and 2.24 ± 0.66 (p = 0.269). Mean BBPS immediately after rectal washout and 30 min thereafter did not differ (p = 0.711). Coloshield application was feasible without any complications. The median (interquartile range) numeric rating scale for pain 4 h after surgery was 1 (0–1) and 3 (0–4) (p = 0.212). Six weeks after surgery 0/11 and 1/11 patients suffered from evacuation difficulties (p = 1.0) and the median Vaizey–Wexner score was 1 (0–3) and 1 (0–2) (p = 0.360).

Conclusions

Coloshield application in humans is feasible and safe. Slight benefits in rectal preparation by washout are found when Coloshield is used. Colon occlusion by Coloshield for transrectal NOTES should be evaluated within clinical studies.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02579330

Short-term efficacy of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This case-control study compared the short-term clinical efficacy of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) using a prolapsing technique and the conventional laparoscopic-assisted approach for low rectal cancer.

AIM

To further explore the application value of the transanal placement of the anvil and to evaluate the short-term efficacy of NOSES for resecting specimens of low rectal cancer, as well as to provide a theoretical basis for its extensive clinical application.

METHODS

From June 2015 to June 2018, 108 consecutive laparoscopic-assisted low rectal cancer resections were performed at our center. Among them, 26 specimens were resected transanally using a prolapsing technique (NOSES), and 82 specimens were resected through a conventional abdominal wall small incision (LAP). A propensity score matching method was used to select 26 pairs of matched patients, and their perioperative data were analyzed.

RESULTS

The baseline data were comparable between the two matched groups. All 52 patients underwent the surgery successfully. The operative time, blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, postoperative complication rate, circumferential margin involvement, postoperative follow-up data, and postoperative anal function were not statistically significant. The NOSES group had shorter time to gastrointestinal function recovery (2.6 ± 1.0 d vs 3.4 ± 0.9 d, P = 0.006), shorter postoperative hospital stay (7.1 ± 1.7 d vs 8.3 ± 1.1 d, P = 0.003), lower pain score (day 1: 2.7 ± 1.8 vs 4.6 ± 1.9, day 3: 2.0 ± 1.1 vs 4.1 ± 1.2, day 5: 1.7 ± 0.9 vs 3.3 ± 1.0, P < 0.001), a lower rate of additional analgesic use (11.5% vs 61.5%, P = 0.001), and a higher satisfaction rate in terms of the aesthetic appearance of the abdominal wall after surgery (100% vs 23.1%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

NOSES for low rectal cancer can achieve satisfactory short-term efficacy and has advantages in reducing postoperative pain, shortening the length of postoperative hospital stay, and improving patients’ satisfaction in terms of a more aesthetic appearance of the abdominal wall.

Contamination After Disinfectant Rectal Washout in Left Colectomy as a Model for Transrectal NOTES: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) with transrectal (TR) access the intraoperative opening of the rectal wall poses a risk of intraperitoneal contamination and subsequent infectious complications. A rectal washout with a disinfectant may reduce this risk. The aim of the study was to assess the intraoperative contamination on the circular stapler pin when a rectal washout with povidone-iodine (RW-PI) or Ringer solution was performed in patients undergoing left-sided colectomy. Furthermore, the additional effect of an irrigation instrument on the contamination was evaluated.

METHODS

In a patient and assessor blinded randomized controlled trial, patients undergoing left-sided colectomy were assigned to rectal washout with PI with an irrigation instrument (RW-PI; n = 23), rectal washout with Ringer solution with an irrigation instrument (RW-R; n = 21) or rectal washout with Ringer solution without an irrigation instrument (RW; n = 25). An end-to-end anastomosis with a circular stapler was performed. The contamination on the pin of the circular stapler was chosen as primary endpoint in order to simulate the intraabdominal contamination risk during TR NOTES. Secondary endpoints were contamination of the rectal mucosa, peritoneal contamination and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

The contamination rate of the pin of the circular stapler did not differ (RW-PI 39.1%, RW-R 33.3%, RW 52.0%; P = 0.421), but contamination of the rectal mucosa was reduced (47.8% versus 95.2% versus 100%; P < 0.001) and peritoneal contamination tended to be reduced (39.1% versus 71.4% versus 60.0%; P = 0.09) when a rectal washout with PI was performed. The rates of infectious complications (17.4% versus 9.5% versus 12.0%; P = 0.821) and of overall complications (30.4% versus 28.6% versus 44.0%; P = 0.476) did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an intense rectal washout with PI, contamination of the stapler pin did not differ. Intraabdominal bacterial translocation was frequently encountered even after disinfectant rectal washout with PI. Further studies might focus on the clinical impact of intraabdominal contamination in TR NOTES.

Left colon resection with transrectal specimen extraction: current status

BACKGROUND

Full laparoscopic left colectomy with transrectal specimen extraction is proposed as an improvement of the minimally invasive surgical technique. This paper reviews in detail the current status of left-sided colectomy and upper rectum resection with transrectal specimen extraction.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of all types of publications on colorectal resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE). We only included studies reporting on left colectomy, sigmoidectomy, and high anterior resection with transrectal specimen extraction (TRSE), excluding transanal (TASE), transvaginal, or transcolonic specimen extraction. Surgical techniques, patient characteristics, and outcomes were reviewed in detail.

RESULTS

Thirty-five papers reported on TRSE (2 randomized clinical trials, 7 case-matched series, 19 case series, 5 case reports, and 2 articles on surgical technique). We found a wide variety of innovative anastomotic and specimen extraction techniques. After excluding duplicates and papers reporting mixed TRSE and TASE results, outcomes in patients undergoing TRSE from 23 publications showed a conversion rate to conventional laparoscopy of 3.7% (21/559), overall morbidity 9.5% (53/559) [major in 2.9% (16/559), intra-abdominal infection in 2.1% (12/559)]. No mortality was reported. Postoperative anal incontinence was rarely reported. Several studies showed a decrease in postoperative pain and some in length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Colectomy with TRSE is feasible and seems safe in selected patients. Reported outcomes seem in general similar to conventional laparoscopic colectomy with a possible benefit in postoperative pain and length of hospital stay. Obvious selection bias and lack of high quality trials do not allow firm conclusions to be drawn.

Transrectal rigid-hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy can be performed without peritoneal contamination: a controlled porcine survival study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The risk of infectious complications due to peritoneal contamination is a major concern and inhibits the widespread use of transrectal NOTES. A standardized rectal washout with a reversible colon occlusion device in situ has previously shown potential in reducing peritoneal contamination. The aim of this study was to compare the peritoneal contamination rate and inflammatory reaction for transrectal cholecystectomy after ideal rectal preparation (trCCE) and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (lapCCE) in a porcine survival experiment.

METHODS

Twenty pigs were randomized to trCCE (n = 10) or lapCCE (n = 10). Before trCCE, rectal washout was performed with saline solution. A colon occlusion device was then inserted and a second washout with povidone-iodine was performed. The perioperative course and the inflammatory reaction (leukocytes, C-reactive protein) were compared. At necropsy, 14 days after surgery the abdominal cavity was screened for infectious complications and peritoneal swabs were obtained for comparison of peritoneal contamination.

RESULTS

Peritoneal contamination was lower after trCCE than after lapCCE (0/10 vs. 6/10; p = 0.003). No infectious complications were found at necropsy in either group and postoperative complications did not differ (p = 1.0). Immediately after the procedure, leukocytes were higher after lapCCE (17.0 ± 2.7 vs. 14.6 ± 2.3; p = 0.047). Leukocytes and C-reactive protein showed no difference in the further postoperative course. Intraoperative complications and total operation time (trCCE 114 ± 32 vs. 111 ± 27 min; p = 0.921) did not differ, but wound closure took longer for trCCE (31.5 ± 19 vs. 13 ± 5 min; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

After standardized rectal washout with a colon occlusion device in situ, trCCE was associated without peritoneal contamination and without access-related infectious complications. Based on the findings of this study, a randomized controlled clinical study comparing clinical outcomes of trCCE with lapCCE should be conducted.