Introduction of new techniques and technologies in surgery: Where is transanal total mesorectal excision today?

The introduction of new surgical techniques and technologies has traditionally been unregulated. In many settings surgeons frequently adopt novel procedures without following a structured program of implementation or supervision. The appearance of innovative technology played a pivotal role in the advancement of new surgical techniques during the industrial revolution. Innovation has been an essential component of surgical development, which led to contemporary surgical techniques such as minimally invasive surgery. Different initiatives have been developed to guide the safe introduction of new surgical techniques and other procedures. Those include comprehensive concepts such as the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study framework, which could be particularly relevant when reflecting on the novel transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME), introduced a decade ago. This relatively novel and complex procedure promised to overcome some of the major limitations of traditional surgical approaches for rectal cancer. According to the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study framework, taTME is in the phase of exploration, where there is an existing and increasing number of reports being published as the experience grows. The current management of rectal cancer is in a state of radical evolution, with multiple options that were not previously available. TaTME is only one technique amongst many which could be part of a rectal cancer surgeon’s armamentarium; however, it requires further rigorous study and evaluation.     

Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: is there a learning curve?

Background

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) is associated with a steep learning curve, but the learning curve for robotic TME is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the learning curve for robotic TME.

Methods

Between November 2004 and April 2009, 80 patients underwent robotic TME performed by a single surgeon. The operative experience was divided into two groups: group 1 (the first 40 cases) and group 2 (the subsequent 40 cases). Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and morbidities were compared.

Results

The two patient populations selected did not differ statistically in age, body mass index (BMI), preoperative risk assessment, stage, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, or tumor location. The mean operative times in group 1 (310?min) and group 2 (297?min) were similar (p?=?0.55), and the mean robotic TME time did not differ between the two groups (60 vs. 64?min; p?=?0.65). In addition, the operative times did not improve during the course of the study. There were no differences in EBL, margin status, or number of lymph nodes harvested. Furthermore, there were no differences in conversion rate, time to resumption of diet, length of hospital stay, or postoperative complications.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted TME may attenuate the learning curve for laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. Further studies are necessary to establish the role of robotic surgery in minimally invasive rectal operations.     

Extrafascial excision of the rectum or total meso-rectal excision?

Total mesorectal excision is a valuable technique in preventing local recurrences cancer. However the use of the word "mesorectum" is inaccurate anatomically, and the implication that total excision of all the perirectal fat contained within the perirectal fascia in all patients with rectal cancer will minimize local recurrences remains contentious. The term extrafascial excision of the rectum is more accurate. He may contribute as well to a better understanding of the surgical technique allowing all surgeons to improve their own results.     

Is total excision of spinal neurenteric cysts possible?

Spinal neurenteric cysts are intradural cystic lesions. These represent a part of the spectrum of developmental anomalies. These are rare lesions. Most of the data in literature is review of case reports. This made us evaluate our results of 23 cases and review the literature. This is a retrospective study of 23 patients managed at our institute over 20 years. The slides were retrieved and histopathological features studied. Twenty patients were less than 30 years old and 21 were males. Follow-up was available for 21 patients with mean duration of 71 months (range 2 months to 23 years). The typical presentation was backache with progressive neurological deficits pertaining to the level. Atypical presentations as acute onset, recurrent episodic events and aseptic meningitis were also noted. The cervicothoracic region was the most common site. 16 patients had cyst in intradural extramedullary plane and seven had intramedullary location. Associated vertebral anomalies as hemivertebrae, Klippel-Feil and spina bifida were noted in seven patients. There were two histological types of cysts with no correlation between the type of cysts and associated vertebral anomalies and extent of outcome. Partial excision though had higher risk of recurrence, was not associated with poorer outcome. Dorsal approach is an acceptable route with reasonably good results for this lesion. Spinal neurenteric cysts present at younger age with varied clinical presentations. These are commonly located intradurally ventral to the cord. Histological types have no effect on the outcome. Total excision is the choice of treatment. However, partial excision is a feasible option in intramedullary lesions and when significant adhesions occur. Although associated with higher risk of recurrence, the outcome is still good in these patients on re-excision.     

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision: should it be considered as the technique of choice in the management of rectal cancer?

The feasibility of robotic surgery has been extensively explored over the past decade with a more recent shift towards defining focused clinical applications for which quantifiable patient benefits can be directly attributed to its use. The aim of this article is to review the current literature on the use of daVinci robotic surgery for the management of rectal cancer and identify the potential benefits, if any, that robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (RTME) may provide over the current conventional approach. A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify relevant evidence in order to explore the oncological, operative and functional outcome measures for the RTME in addition to quantifying the level of evidence which describes the clinical effectiveness of the daVinci robot in oncological surgery. Both robotic assisted techniques and the primary outcomes are discussed. In total, 23 studies were reviewed across 11 institutions, including one pilot randomised control trial. When data repetition is disregarded, a total of 452 robotic assisted laparoscopic anterior resections and 60 robotic-assisted laparoscopic abdomino-perineal excision of the rectum have been published since the introduction of the daVinci into clinical practice. Feasibility of the daVinci robotic assisted total mesorectal excision is demonstrated, with comparable oncological outcomes presented for rectal cancer excision. A demonstration of a reduced open conversion rate as well as of reduced hospital stay with the use of the robot is highlighted, although further trials are required to confirm both these findings. No functional benefit in using the daVinci could be confirmed due to the lack of focused trials in this area.     

T1 adenocarcinoma of the rectum: transanal excision or radical surgery?

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest local excision may be acceptable treatment of T1 adenocarcinoma of the rectum, but there is little comparative data with radical surgery to assess outcomes and quantify risk. We performed a retrospective evaluation of patients with T1 rectal cancers treated by either transanal excision or radical resection at our institution to assess patient selection, cancer recurrence, and survival. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for T1 adenocarcinomas of the rectum (0-15 cm from anal verge) by either transanal excision (TAE) or radical resection (RAD) between January 1987 and January 2004 were identified from a prospective database. Data were analyzed using Fisher exact test, Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank test. RESULTS: Three hundred nineteen consecutive patients with T1 lesions were treated by transanal excision (n = 151) or radical surgery (n = 168) over the 17-year period. RAD surgery was associated with higher tumor location in the rectum, slightly larger tumor size, a similar rate of adverse histology, and a lymph node metastasis rate of 18%. Despite these features, patients who underwent RAD surgery had fewer local recurrences, fewer distant recurrences, and significantly better recurrence-free survival (P = 0.0001). Overall and disease-specific survival was similar for RAD and TAE groups. CONCLUSION: Despite a similar risk profile in the 2 surgical groups, patients with T1 rectal cancer treated by local excision were observed to have a 3- to 5-fold higher risk of tumor recurrence compared with patients treated by radical surgery. Local excision should be reserved for low-risk cancers in patients who will accept an increased risk of tumor recurrence, prolonged surveillance, and possible need for aggressive salvage surgery. Radical resection is the more definitive surgical treatment of T1 rectal cancers.     

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An evaluation of the mesorectum’s macroscopic quality

BACKGROUND: Next to surgical margins, yield of lymph nodes, and length of bowel resected, macroscopic completeness of mesorectal excision may serve as another quality control of total mesorectal excision (TME). In this study, the macroscopic completeness of laparoscopic TME was evaluated. METHODS: A series of 25 patients with rectal cancer were managed laparoscopically (LTME) and included in this study. The pathologic specimens of the LTME group were prospectively examined and matched with a historical group of resection specimens from patients who had undergone open TME (OTME). The two groups were matched for gender and type of resection (low anterior or abdominoperineal resection). Special care was given to the macroscopic judgment concerning the completeness of the mesorectum. RESULTS: A three-grade scoring system showed no differences between the LTME and OTME groups. CONCLUSION: The current study supports the hypothesis that oncologic resection using laparoscopic TME is feasible and adequate.