Natural orifice surgery applied for colorectal diseases

Does transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) result in better quality of life and functional outcomes than traditional TME does? A retrospective propensity score-adjusted cohort study

PURPOSE

The improved prognosis of rectal cancer through modern therapeutic approaches raises questions regarding quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes. In this study, we compared post-transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) short- and long-term QoL and functional outcomes with those after abdominal TME (abTME).

METHODS

Prospective data from patients who underwent elective taTME or abTME for stage I-III rectal cancer followed by anastomosis were retrospectively propensity score-adjusted. The primary endpoint, QoL, was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Functional outcomes were the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Among 494 patients during 2013-2022, 187 patients who underwent taTME and 62 patients who underwent abTME were included. QoL was worse after taTME at isolated time points: overall QoL (after 3 years: 72 vs. 82 points, p = 0.017) and QLQ-total (after 3 years: 81 vs. 87 points, p = 0.028; after 4 years: 82 vs. 89 points, p = 0.012). After propensity score matching, the between-group differences were still significant but smaller: overall QoL - 6 points, p = 0.021; QLQ-total - 5 points, p = 0.026.

CONCLUSION

The differences reported at isolated time points have questionable clinical relevance. Therefore, taTME and traditional abTME seem to have comparable long-term QoL and functional outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06505863, https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?id=NCT06505863 .

Is survival after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) worse than that after traditional total mesorectal excision? A retrospective propensity score-adjusted cohort study

PURPOSE

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was developed to provide better vision during resection of the mesorectum. Conflicting results have shown an increase in local recurrence and shorter survival after taTME. This study compared the outcomes of taTME and abdominal (open, laparoscopic, robotic) total mesorectal excision (abTME).

METHODS

Patients who underwent taTME or abTME for stages I-III rectal cancer and who received an anastomosis were included. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively conducted database was performed. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Risk factors were adjusted by propensity score matching (PSM). The secondary endpoints were local recurrence rates and combined poor pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2020, a total of 189 patients underwent taTME, and 119 underwent abTME; patients were followed up for a mean of 54.7 (SD 24.2) and 78.4 (SD 34.8) months, respectively (p < 0.001). The 5-year survival rates after taTME and abTME were not significantly different after PSM: OS: 78.2% vs. 88.6% (p = 0.073), CSS: 87.4% vs. 92.1% (p = 0.359), and DFS: 69.3% vs. 80.9% (p = 0.104), respectively. No difference in the local recurrence rate was observed (taTME, n = 10 (5.3%); abTME, n = 10 (8.4%); p = 0.280). Combined poor pathological outcomes were more frequent after abTME (n = 36, 34.3%) than after taTME (n = 35, 19.6%) (p = 0.006); this difference was nonsignificant according to multivariate analysis (p = 0.404).

CONCLUSION

taTME seems to be a good treatment option for patients with rectal cancer and is unlikely to significantly affect local recurrence or survival. However, further investigations concerning the latter are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0496910).

Early results of novel robotic surgery-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer and transvaginal specimen extraction by using Da Vinci XI: initial clinical experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the early results of robotic surgery-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer and transvaginal specimen extraction, regarding the operative time, operative and early postoperative complications, hospital stay, and pathological reports in a series of 10 patients.

METHODS

From November 2016 to October 2019, case series study on patients diagnosed with RC was included in this study. All robotic-assisted low anterior resection of the rectum, vaginal removal of the specimen, colorectal anastomosis, and loop ileostomies were performed using the Da Vinci XI system.

RESULTS

The mean age of patient was 64.8 (58-72) years. Low anterior resection was performed to seven patients, and very low anterior resection was performed to three patients. Total mesorectal excision of the rectum, transvaginal specimen extraction, transanal anastomoses, and protective ileostomy were performed in all 10 patients. The mean operative time was 275±30.50 min, and estimated blood loss was 50±10.50 mL. No patient required conversion to conventional surgery. Negative circumferential resection, proximal, and distal margins were accomplished negative. Mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 20±5.5. According to the pathological reports, all were adenocarcinoma. T1 stage was 80.0%, and T2 stage was 20.0%. Lymph node metastasis accounted for 80.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

To our literature search, this is the first study reporting the early outcomes of the novel robotic surgery-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer and transvaginal specimen extraction by using the Da Vinci Xi system. It can be performed safely and successfully in selected patients by providing an excellent cosmetic body image, which may be important for women.

Transcolonic Perirectal NOTES Access (PNA): A feasibility study with survival in swine model

Transrectal access still has some unsolved issues such as spatial orientation, infection, access and site closure. This study presents a simple technique to perform transcolonic access with survival in a swine model series. A new technique for NOTES perirectal access to perform retroperitoneoscopy, peritoneoscopy, liver and lymphnode biopsies was performed in 6 pigs, using Totally NOTES technique. The specimens were extracted transanally. The flexible endoscope was inserted through a posterior transmural incision and the retrorectal space. Cultures of bacteria were documented for the retroperitoneal space and intra abdominal cavity after 14 days. Rectal site was closed using non-absorbable sutures. There was no bowel cleansing, nor preoperative fasting. The procedures were performed in 6 pigs through transcolonic natural orifice access using available endoscopic flexible instruments. All animals survived 14 days without complications, and cultures were negative. Histopathologic examination of the rectal closure site showed adequate healing of suture line and no micro abscesses. The results of feasibility and safety of experimental Transcolonic NOTES potentially brings new frontiers and future wider applications for minimally invasive surgery. The treatment of colorectal, abdominal and retroperitoneal diseases through a flexible Perirectal NOTES Access (PNA) is a promising new approach.

New trends in colorectal surgery: Single port and natural orifice techniques

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) have rapidly gained pace worldwide, potentially replacing conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) as the preferred colorectal surgery technique. Currently available data mainly consist of retrospective series analyzed in four meta-analyses. Despite conflicting results and lack of an objective comparison, SILS appears to offer cosmetic advantages over CLS. However, due to conflicting results and marked heterogeneity, present data fail to show significant differences in terms of operative time, postoperative morbidity profiles, port-site complications rates, oncological appropriateness, duration of hospitalization or cost when comparing SILS with conventional laparoscopy for colorectal procedures. The application of “pure” NOTES in humans remains limited to case reports because of unresolved issues concerning the ideal access site, distant organ reach, spatial orientation and viscera closure. Alternatively, minilaparoscopy-assisted natural orifice surgery techniques are being developed. The transanal “down-to-up” total mesorectum excision has been derived for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and represents the most encouraging NOTES-derived technique. Preliminary experiences demonstrate good oncological and functional short-term outcomes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are now mandatory to confirm the long-term SILS results and validate transanal TEM for the application of NOTES in humans.

"Down-to-Up" transanal NOTES Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Preliminary series of 9 patients

BACKGROUND:

Applications for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) to access the abdominal cavity have increased in recent years. Despite potential advantages of transanal and transcolonic NOTES for colorectal pathology, it has not been widely applied in the clinical setting. This study describes a series of nine patients for whom we performed transanal retrograde (“Down-to-Up”) total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Under IRB approval, informed consent was obtained from each patient with rectal adenocarcinoma. Rectosigmoidectomy with total mesorectal excision was performed using low rectal translumenal access to the mesorectal fascia and subsequent dissection in a retrograde fashion. This was achieved using either a single port device or flexible colonoscope with endoscopic instrumentation and laparoscopic assistance. This was followed by transanal extraction of the specimen and hand-sewn anastomosis.

RESULTS:

Mean operative time was 311 min. Mean hospital stay was 7.56 days. Complications occurred in two patients, and consisted of one anastomotic leakage with reoperation and one intraoperative conversion to open surgery because of impossibility to dissect the specimen. TME specimen integrity was adequate in six patients.

CONCLUSION:

This series suggests that a retrograde mesorectal dissection via a NOTES technique is feasible in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. This technique may act as a complimentary part of operative treatment for rectal cancer alongside other minimally invasive strategies. Long-term follow up will be needed to assess oncological results.

"Down-to-Up" transanal NOTES Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Preliminary series of 9 patients

BACKGROUND

Applications for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) to access the abdominal cavity have increased in recent years. Despite potential advantages of transanal and transcolonic NOTES for colorectal pathology, it has not been widely applied in the clinical setting. This study describes a series of nine patients for whom we performed transanal retrograde ("Down-to-Up") total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Under IRB approval, informed consent was obtained from each patient with rectal adenocarcinoma. Rectosigmoidectomy with total mesorectal excision was performed using low rectal translumenal access to the mesorectal fascia and subsequent dissection in a retrograde fashion. This was achieved using either a single port device or flexible colonoscope with endoscopic instrumentation and laparoscopic assistance. This was followed by transanal extraction of the specimen and hand-sewn anastomosis.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 311 min. Mean hospital stay was 7.56 days. Complications occurred in two patients, and consisted of one anastomotic leakage with reoperation and one intraoperative conversion to open surgery because of impossibility to dissect the specimen. TME specimen integrity was adequate in six patients.

CONCLUSION

This series suggests that a retrograde mesorectal dissection via a NOTES technique is feasible in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. This technique may act as a complimentary part of operative treatment for rectal cancer alongside other minimally invasive strategies. Long-term follow up will be needed to assess oncological results.

Video. Transanal specimen retrieval using the transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) system in minimally invasive colon resection

BACKGROUND

During laparoscopic colectomy, the specimen is retrieved through substantial incisions, which increase postoperative pain, wound infections, and incisional hernias. In the era of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), incisionless transrectal approaches for colon resections have been investigated with promising results [4-6]. Transanal retrieval of the colonic specimen in laparoscopic colectomy has been described but not widely adopted, although it seems to be an appealing step towards NOTES colectomy. We have used the TEM rectoscope (Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corporation, Vernon Hills, IL, USA) as a retrieval conduit, which facilitates transanal extraction of the specimen, and protects the rectal edge and anal sphincter during laparoscopic left colectomy.

TECHNIQUE

After standard laparoscopic dissection and vascular control, the colon is divided distally, whereas the proximal colonic end is ligated to prevent fecal spillage. The TEM rectoscope is advanced through the rectal stump. The proximal colon is grasped and withdrawn through the rectoscope. The colon is stapled off proximally, and the specimen is removed transanally. An anvil is introduced into the pelvis through the rectoscope and inserted in the descending colon through a colotomy, which is subsequently sealed with an endo-loop. The rectoscope is withdrawn, and the rectal stump edge is stapled off. A circular stapler is introduced in the rectum, and end-to-end anastomosis is performed.

DISCUSSION

The extraction incisions in laparoscopic colectomy increase invasiveness and compromise the "purity" of the laparoscopic approach. Retrieval of the specimen through natural orifices constitutes a stepping stone in the transition to future incisionless NOTES colectomy. These techniques have not been widely adopted because of technical difficulties and concerns regarding trauma. In our experience, transanal retrieval of the colonic specimen is hampered by friction between the specimen and the rectum, which requires countertraction to the edges of the open rectal stump. These manipulations are time consuming and increase the risk of injury, even when retrieval bags are used. The TEM rectoscope allows gentle dilation of the anus, provides stability during extraction, and protects the edges of the rectum, therefore decreasing the risk of rectal or anal canal injuries. It maintains pneumoperitoneum and eases retrieval of the specimen through the large-caliber metal conduit. Alternative options in the form of a rigid conduit would be the use of the transanal endoscopic operation device (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany), the plastic McCartney tube (Tyco Healthcare, Norwalk, CT, USA) used for transvaginal operations, or an anecdotally reported, "homemade" rectoscope from a customized polyvinyl chloride tube. Potential limitations of this technique include the increased cost of acquiring and using the TEM rectoscope, although this should not be significant if this reusable system is already available for transanal procedures. The 4 cm diameter of the TEM rectoscope can also be a limiting factor in the case of large, bulky, incompressible specimens or large colonic tumors. We have also avoided using this technique in patients with preexisting anal sphincter dysfunction and fecal incontinence, as well as in the presence of severe perianal disease (i.e., fistulae or fissures). Naturally, the open lumen in the peritoneal cavity raises concerns regarding bacterial contamination and potential tumor cell seeding in cases of cancer. Preliminary evidence on these issues comes from TEM and NOTES research without obvious signs of increased risk currently. We do not perform preoperative bowel preparation for our colectomies, but we do perform rectal enema with Betadine solution at the beginning of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the TEM system facilitates transanal removal of the specimen and protects the anorectum during laparoscopic colectomy.

Disinfection of the Access Orifice in NOTES: Evaluation of the Evidence Base

Introduction. Appropriate prevention of infection is a key area of research in natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), as identified by the Natural Orifice Surgery Consortium for Assessment and Research (NOSCAR). Methods. A review of the literature was conducted evaluating the evidence base for access orifice preparation/treatment in NOTES procedures in the context of infectious complications. Recommendations based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines were made. Results. The most robust evidence includes several experimental randomised controlled trials assessing infectious complications in the transgastric approach to NOTES. Transvaginal procedures are long established for accessing the peritoneal cavity following disinfection with antiseptic. Only experimental case series for transcolonic and transvesical approaches are described. Conclusion. Grade C recommendation requiring no preoperative preparation can be made for the transgastric approach. Antiseptic irrigation is recommended for transvaginal (grade C) NOTES access, as is current practice. Further human trials need to be conducted to corroborate the current evidence base for transgastric closure. It is important that future trials are conducted in a methodologically robust fashion, with emphasis on clinical outcomes and standardisation of enterotomy closure and postoperative therapy.

A natural orifice transrectal approach for oncologic resection of the rectosigmoid: an experimental study and comparison with conventional laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

A transrectal (TR) approach for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) makes sense for colorectal surgery because the colotomy can be incorporated into subsequent anastomosis. Because cancer is a primary indication for left-sided colon resection, oncologic standards will have to be met by a NOTES procedure. This study aimed to assess whether pure TR rectosigmoidectomy can be performed with strict adherence to oncologic principles compared with a conventional laparoscopically assisted approach (LAP).

METHODS

Human male cadavers were allocated to either TR (n = 4) or LAP (n = 2). A simulated sigmoid lesion was created at 25 cm. Transrectal retrograde mobilization of the rectosigmoid was performed using conventional transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) instrumentation. After ligation of the superior hemorrhoidal artery and further mobilization, the specimen was delivered transanally and divided extracorporeally. Using a circular stapler, NOTES colorectal anastomosis was performed. Lymph node yield, adequate resection margins, and operative time were compared with LAP.

RESULTS

Transrectal retrograde rectosigmoid dissection was achieved in all attempts (4/4) and showed numbers of lymph nodes (median, 5; range, 3-6) similar to the LAP group (median, 4.5; range, 2-7). One pure TR approach failed to resect the lesion. Three TR procedures required additional mobilization via an abdominal approach to provide adequate margins. The mean length of TR specimens was 16 ± 4 cm compared with 31 ± 9 cm achieved by LAP (p < 0.01). The TR operative time was significantly longer (247 ± 15 vs 110 ± 14 min).

CONCLUSION

Lymph node yield during TR rectosigmoidectomy was similar to that achieved by the LAP approach. However, conventional TEM instrumentation alone did not permit adequate colon mobilization. This indicates a need for flexible instrumentation or other technical solutions to perform true NOTES colectomies.