Annals of Coloproctology

Display

Sort by :

Review

Colorectal cancer

Essential knowledge and technical tips for total mesorectal excision and related procedures for rectal cancer: Min Soo Cho, Hyeon Woo Bae, Nam Kyu Kim; Ann Coloproctol. 2024;40(4):384-411. Published online August 30, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2024.00388.0055

13,318 View
368 Download
6 Web of Science
7 Citations

Total mesorectal excision (TME) has greatly improved rectal cancer surgery outcomes by reducing local recurrence and enhancing patient survival. This review outlines essential knowledge and techniques for performing TME. TME emphasizes the complete resection of the mesorectum along embryologic planes to minimize recurrence. Key anatomical insights include understanding the rectal proper fascia, Denonvilliers fascia, rectosacral fascia, and the pelvic autonomic nerves. Technical tips cover a step-by-step approach to pelvic dissection, the Gate approach, and tailored excision of Denonvilliers fascia, focusing on preserving pelvic autonomic nerves and ensuring negative circumferential resection margins. In Korea, TME has led to significant improvements in local recurrence rates and survival with well-adopted multidisciplinary approaches. Surgical techniques of TME have been optimized and standardized over several decades in Korea, and minimally invasive surgery for TME has been rapidly and successfully adopted. The review emphasizes the need for continuous research on tumor biology and precise surgical techniques to further improve rectal cancer management. The ultimate goal of TME is to achieve curative resection and function preservation, thereby enhancing the patient’s quality of life. Accurate TME, multidisciplinary-based neoadjuvant therapy, refined sphincter-preserving techniques, and ongoing tumor research are essential for optimal treatment outcomes.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in colorectal cancer management: a narrative review of clinical efficacy and multidisciplinary integration
Engeng Chen, Li Chen, Wei Zhang
Frontiers in Oncology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Golden vision: The potential of yellow enhancement in laparoscopic abdominal surgeries and surgical education
Harpreet Singh, Frederick Hong Xiang Koh
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparing robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer surgical and oncological outcomes
Wenpeng Wang, Jia Liu, Jiefu Wang, Jinghao Huang, Junfeng Wang
Frontiers in Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Early Complication Differences Between Laparoscopic and Open Abdominoperineal Resection
Sarkhail A Sayar, Rehan Ahmed, Syed Shafqatullah, Muhammad Asad, Muhammad Osama Iqbal, Resham Ali, Raja Jawad, Mukkaram Khan, Amna Fareed, Uroosa Shadani
Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection: Comparison of Peri-Operative Outcomes at United Lincolnshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Nadeem Ahmad Bhat, Rajalakshmi Venkateswaran, Nuha Amri, Trisha Kanani, Athula Tennakoon, Amit Shukla, Sridhar Dharmavaram
Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
From the Editor: Uniting expertise, a new era of global collaboration in coloproctology
In Ja Park
Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(4): 285. CrossRef
Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Hypofractionated Chemoradiotherapy in Elderly Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis
Jae Seung Kim, Jaram Lee, Hyeung-min Park, Soo Young Lee, Chang Hyun Kim, Hyeong Rok Kim
Cancers.2024; 16(24): 4280. CrossRef

Original Article

Translational/basic research

Exfoliate cancer cell analysis in rectal cancer surgery: comparison of laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision, a pilot study: Kiho You, Jung-Ah Hwang, Dae Kyung Sohn, Dong Woon Lee, Sung Sil Park, Kyung Su Han, Chang Won Hong, Bun Kim, Byung Chang Kim, Sung Chan Park, Jae Hwan Oh; Ann Coloproctol. 2023;39(6):502-512. Published online December 26, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2023.00479.0068

3,375 View
117 Download

Graphical Abstract Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is currently the standard treatment for rectal cancer. However, its limitations include complications and incomplete total mesorectal resection (TME) due to anatomical features and technical difficulties. Transanal TME (TaTME) has been practiced since 2010 to improve this, but there is a risk of local recurrence and intra-abdominal contamination. We aimed to analyze samples obtained through lavage to compare laparoscopic TME (LapTME) and TaTME.
Methods
From June 2020 to January 2021, 20 patients with rectal cancer undergoing MIS were consecutively and prospectively recruited. Samples were collected at the start of surgery, immediately after TME, and after irrigation. The samples were analyzed for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cytokeratin 20 (CK20) through a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. The primary outcome was to compare the detected amounts of CEA and CK20 immediately after TME between the surgical methods.
Results
Among the 20 patients, 13 underwent LapTME and 7 underwent TaTME. Tumor location was lower in TaTME (7.3 cm vs. 4.6 cm, P=0.012), and negative mesorectal fascia (MRF) was more in LapTME (76.9% vs. 28.6%, P=0.044). CEA and CK20 levels were high in 3 patients (42.9%) only in TaTME. There was 1 case of T4 with incomplete purse-string suture and 1 case of positive MRF with dissection failure. All patients were followed up for an average of 32.5 months without local recurrence.
Conclusion
CEA and CK20 levels were high only in TaTME and were related to tumor factors or intraoperative events. However, whether the detection amount is clinically related to local recurrence remains unclear.

Reviews

Optimal anastomotic technique in rectal surgery to prevent anastomotic leakage: Daichi Kitaguchi, Masaaki Ito; Ann Coloproctol. 2023;39(2):97-105. Published online January 3, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00787.0112

8,477 View
483 Download
15 Web of Science
16 Citations

Abstract PDF

Complications after colorectal surgery remain inevitable, and anastomotic leakage is one of the most severe and potentially fatal complications. Generally, anastomotic leakage is associated with severe peritonitis, the need for emergency reoperation, and an increased mortality rate. Additionally, particularly after rectal cancer surgery, it has a negative impact on long-term outcomes, including postoperative anorectal function, local recurrence, and survival. To prevent anastomotic leakage, understanding the characteristics of each anastomotic technique and establishing a stable anastomotic procedure are important. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a relatively new advanced surgical access technique for pelvic dissection and facilitates different anastomotic techniques without the need for transabdominal rectal transection. Especially, stapled anastomosis in TaTME, also known as double purse-string circular stapled anastomosis or the single stapling technique (SST), has gained much attention as an alternative to the conventional double stapling technique (DST). In this article, we describe the DST, SST, and hand-sewn anastomosis as anastomotic techniques after rectal surgery, focusing mainly on the differences between conventional anastomotic techniques and SST in TaTME. Furthermore, the blood flow evaluation method for the reconstructive colon before anastomosis, which is extremely important in anastomotic leakage prevention regardless of the anastomotic type, is also described.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as an early predictor of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery
Yingjun Liu, Bing Han, Weifeng Xu, Youcai Wang, Mingke Huo, Jianwei Wang, Hongli Wang, Zhi Li
Surgery.2026; 190: 109829. CrossRef
Optimizing outcomes in anastomotic recurrence of rectal cancer: Efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision
Mengqin Yu, Ximo Xu, Hao Zhong, Duohuo Shu, Naijipu Abuduaini, Jingyi Liu, Zhenfeng Huang, Haiqin Song, Sen Zhang, Xiao Yang, Zhenghao Cai, Gaojian Cao, Jianwen Li, Bo Feng
Current Problems in Surgery.2025; 66: 101748. CrossRef
Sphincter-preserving surgical techniques in low rectal cancer management: A systematic review of contemporary evidence
Song Wang, A-Jian Li, Hui-Hong Jiang, Yin Lin, Hai-Bo Ding
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
The robotic intracorporeal single-stapled anastomosis (RiSSA) technique in robotic left-sided colorectal resection: a technical note
Chih-Chien Wu, Yung-Lin Tan, Chao-Wen Hsu, Hsin-Ping Tseng, Danilo Miskovic, Shih-Feng Huang
Annals of Coloproctology.2025; 41(4): 357. CrossRef
Achieving the perfect end-to-end single-stapled anastomosis in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: technical aspects
Cherylin Wan Pei Fu
Annals of Coloproctology.2025; 41(4): 361. CrossRef
Comparative perioperative outcomes of articulated versus conventional straight devices in laparoscopic low anterior resection: a propensity score–matched analysis
Hayoung Lee, Yong Sik Yoon, Young Il Kim, Min Hyun Kim, Jong Lyul Lee, Chan Wook Kim, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim
Annals of Coloproctology.2025; 41(5): 434. CrossRef
Dissection layer selection based on an understanding of pelvic fascial anatomy in transanal total mesorectal excision
Daichi Kitaguchi, Masaaki Ito
Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(4): 375. CrossRef
Successful Clinical Avoidance of Colorectal Anastomotic Leakage through Local Decontamination
Gerhard Ernst Steyer, Markus Puchinger, Johann Pfeifer
Antibiotics.2024; 13(1): 79. CrossRef
Combined Robotic Transanal Transection Single-Stapled Technique in Ultralow Rectal Endometriosis Involvement Associated With Parametrial and Vaginal Infiltration
Gianmarco D'Ancona, Benjamin Merlot, Quentin Denost, Stefano Angioni, Thomas Dennis, Horace Roman
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology.2024; 31(4): 267. CrossRef
Risk factors for the failure of endoscopic balloon dilation to manage anastomotic stricture from colorectal surgery: retrospective cohort study
Young Il Kim, Seung Wook Hong, Seok-Byung Lim, Dong-Hoon Yang, Eon Bin Kim, Min Hyun Kim, Chan Wook Kim, Jong Lyul Lee, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Chang Sik Yu
Surgical Endoscopy.2024; 38(4): 1775. CrossRef
The impact of powered circular staplers on anastomotic leak in left-sided colorectal cancer surgeries
Hayoung Lee, Yong Sik Yoon, Young Il Kim, Eun Jung Park, Min Hyun Kim, Jong Lyul Lee, Chan Wook Kim, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim
Surgical Endoscopy.2024; 38(10): 6111. CrossRef
Effect of powered circular stapler in colorectal anastomosis after left-sided colic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis
Andrea Scardino, Carlo Galdino Riva, Luca Sorrentino, Sara Lauricella, Alberto Aiolfi, Matteo Rottoli, Gianluca Bonitta, Marco Vitellaro, Luigi Bonavina, Davide Bona, Michael Kelly, Emanuele Rausa
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Early detection of anastomotic leakage in colon cancer surgery: the role of early warning score and C-reactive protein
Gyung Mo Son
Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(5): 415. CrossRef
Optimal Indocyanine Green Dosage for Repetitive Angiography for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery
Gyung Mo Son, Sang-Ho Park, Nam Su Kim, Mi Sook Yun, In Young Lee, Myeong-Sook Kwon, Tae Kyun Kim, Eun Hwa Lee, Eun Jung Hwang, Kwang-Ryul Baek
Medicina.2024; 60(12): 1966. CrossRef
The Safe Values of Quantitative Perfusion Parameters of ICG Angiography Based on Tissue Oxygenation of Hyperspectral Imaging for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective Observational Study
Gyung Son, Armaan Nazir, Mi Yun, In Lee, Sun Im, Jae Kwak, Sang-Ho Park, Kwang-Ryul Baek, Ines Gockel
Biomedicines.2023; 11(7): 2029. CrossRef
Impact of Postoperative Naples Prognostic Score to Predict Survival in Patients with Stage II–III Colorectal Cancer
Su Hyeong Park, Hye Seung Woo, In Kyung Hong, Eun Jung Park
Cancers.2023; 15(20): 5098. CrossRef

Malignant disease, Rectal cancer,Colorectal cancer

Extended lymphadenectomy in locally advanced rectal cancers: a systematic review: Balaji Mahendran, Supriya Balasubramanya, Simone Sebastiani, Sebastian Smolarek; Ann Coloproctol. 2022;38(1):3-12. Published online November 17, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2021.00703.0100

5,206 View
164 Download
8 Web of Science
7 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose
The surgical treatment of advanced low rectal cancer remains controversial. Extended lymphadenectomy (EL) is the preferred option in the East, especially in Japan, while neoadjuvant radiotherapy is the treatment of choice in the West. This review was undertaken to review available evidence supporting each of the therapies.
Methods
All studies looking at EL were included in this review. A comprehensive search was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcome was defined as 5-year overall survival, with secondary outcomes including 3-year overall survival, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival, length of operation, and number of complications.
Results
Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant publication bias. There was statistically significant difference in 5-year survival for patient who underwent EL (odds ratio, 1.34; 95 confidence interval, 0.09–0.5; P=0.006). There were no differences noted in secondary outcomes except for length of the operations.
Conclusion
There is evidence supporting EL in rectal cancer; however, it is difficult to interpret and not easily transferable to a Western population. Further research is necessary on this important topic.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy and rectal cancer: An umbrella review
Valentina Villanova, Alessandro Martinino, Emilia Stanzani, Paola Pastena, Laura Lorenzon, Francesco Giovinazzo
Surgical Oncology.2025; 60: 102215. CrossRef
Non-invasive multi-phase CT artificial intelligence for predicting pre-treatment enlarged lymph node status in colorectal cancer: a prospective validation study
Kui Sun, Junwei Wang, Bingyan Wang, Ying Wang, Siyi Lu, Zhihan Jiang, Wei Fu, Xin Zhou
European Radiology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus R0 resection for resectable colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases and low peritoneal cancer index scores: a collaborative observational study from Korea and Japan
Daichi Kitaguchi, Eun Jung Park, Seung Hyuk Baik, Shoma Sasaki, Yuichiro Tsukada, Masaaki Ito
International Journal of Surgery.2024; 110(1): 45. CrossRef
Performance reporting design in artificial intelligence studies using image-based TNM staging and prognostic parameters in rectal cancer: a systematic review
Minsung Kim, Taeyong Park, Bo Young Oh, Min Jeong Kim, Bum-Joo Cho, Il Tae Son
Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(1): 13. CrossRef
Rectal Cancer: Are 12 Lymph Nodes the Limit?
Paweł Mroczkowski, Łukasz Dziki, Tereza Vosikova, Ronny Otto, Anna Merecz-Sadowska, Radosław Zajdel, Karolina Zajdel, Hans Lippert, Olof Jannasch
Cancers.2023; 15(13): 3447. CrossRef
Fluorescence-guided colorectal surgery: applications, clinical results, and protocols
Jin-Min Jung, In Ja Park, Eun Jung Park, Gyung Mo Son
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2023; 105(5): 252. CrossRef
Advances in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases: A Focus on Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy
Youngbae Jeon, Eun Jung Park
The Ewha Medical Journal.2023;[Epub] CrossRef

Original Article

Malignant disease, Rectal cancer,Prognosis

Initial local excision for clinical T1 rectal cancer showed comparable overall survival despite high local recurrence rate: a propensity-matched analysis: Jong Hee Hyun, Mohamed K. Alhanafy, Hyoung-Chul Park, Su Min Park, Sung-Chan Park, Dae Kyung Sohn, Duck-Woo Kim, Sung-Bum Kang, Seung-Yong Jeong, Kyu Joo Park, Jae Hwan Oh, on behalf of the Seoul Colorectal Research Group (SECOG); Ann Coloproctol. 2022;38(2):166-175. Published online October 6, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2021.00479.0068

6,621 View
192 Download
10 Web of Science
10 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose
Local excision (LE) is an alternative initial treatment for clinical T1 rectal cancer, and has avoided potential morbidity. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of LE compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) for clinical T1 rectal cancer.
Methods
Between January 2000 and December 2011, we retrospectively reviewed from multicenter data in patients with clinically suspected T1 rectal cancer treated with either LE or TME. Of 1,071 patients, 106 were treated with LE and 965 were treated with TME. The data were analyzed using propensity score matching, with each group comprising 91 patients.
Results
After propensity score matching, the median follow-up time was 60.8 months (range, 0.6–150.6 months). After adjustment for the necessary variables, patients who underwent LE showed a significantly higher local recurrence rate than did those who underwent TME; however, there were no differences in disease-free survival and overall survival. In the multivariate analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR], 9.620; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.415–27.098; P<0.001) and angiolymphatic invasion (HR, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.33–9.89; P=0.012) were independently associated with overall survival. However, LE was neither associated with overall survival nor disease-free survival.
Conclusion
LE for clinical T1 rectal cancer yielded a higher local recurrence rate than did TME. Nevertheless, LE provided comparable overall survival rate and can be proposed as an optional treatment in terms of organ-preserving strategies.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Performance reporting design in artificial intelligence studies using image-based TNM staging and prognostic parameters in rectal cancer: a systematic review
Minsung Kim, Taeyong Park, Bo Young Oh, Min Jeong Kim, Bum-Joo Cho, Il Tae Son
Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(1): 13. CrossRef
Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes
Chungyeop Lee, In Ja Park
The World Journal of Men's Health.2024; 42(2): 304. CrossRef
Survival prognostic in different age groups of patients undergoing local versus radical excision for rectal cancer: a study based on the SEER database
Jinghui Li, Liang Wen, Yongli Ma, Guosheng Zhang, Ping Wang, Chengzhi Huang, Xueqing Yao
Updates in Surgery.2024; 76(3): 975. CrossRef
Comparative analysis of organ preservation attempt and radical surgery in clinical T2N0 mid to low rectal cancer
Hyeung-min Park, Jaram Lee, Soo Young Lee, Chang Hyun Kim, Hyeong Rok Kim
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Organ preservation for early rectal cancer using preoperative chemoradiotherapy
Gyung Mo Son
Annals of Coloproctology.2023; 39(3): 191. CrossRef
Surgical Techniques for Transanal Local Excision for Early Rectal Cancer
Gyoung Tae Noh
The Ewha Medical Journal.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
How Can We Improve the Tumor Response to Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer?
Jeonghee Han
The Ewha Medical Journal.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Multidisciplinary treatment strategy for early rectal cancer
Gyung Mo Son, In Young Lee, Sung Hwan Cho, Byung-Soo Park, Hyun Sung Kim, Su Bum Park, Hyung Wook Kim, Sang Bo Oh, Tae Un Kim, Dong Hoon Shin
Precision and Future Medicine.2022; 6(1): 32. CrossRef
The risk-benefit trade-off in local excision of early rectal cancer
Chang Hyun Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2022; 38(2): 95. CrossRef
Applications of propensity score matching: a case series of articles published in Annals of Coloproctology
Hwa Jung Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2022; 38(6): 398. CrossRef

Review

Malignant disease, Rectal cancer

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Current Evidences and Future Perspectives: Je-Ho Jang, Chang-Nam Kim; Ann Coloproctol. 2020;36(5):293-303. Published online October 31, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2020.06.16

6,855 View
111 Download
17 Web of Science
17 Citations

Abstract PDF

Despite the technical limitations of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has short-term advantages over open surgery, but the pathological outcomes reported in randomized clinical trials are still in controversy. Minimally invasive robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) has recently been gaining popularity as robotic surgical systems potentially provide greater benefits than LTME. Compared to LTME, RTME is associated with lower conversion rates and similar or better genitourinary functions, but its long-term oncological outcomes have not been established. Although the operating time of RTME is longer than that of LTME, RTME has a shorter learning curve, is more convenient for surgeons, and is better for sphincter-preserving operations than LTME. The robotic surgical system is a good technical tool for minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer, especially in male patients with narrow deep pelvises. Robotic systems and robotic surgical techniques are still improving, and the contribution of RTME to the treatment of rectal cancer will continue to increase in the future.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Robotic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: Transluminal illumination of the recto‐vaginal septum, transanal low rectal dissection and handmade low colorectal anastomosis—A video vignette
Francesco Crafa, Serafino Vanella, Alfonso Amendola, Emanuele Caruso
Colorectal Disease.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparing the perioperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes between robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies with a subgroup analysis for overweight p
Konstantinos Kossenas, Riad Kouzeiha, Hamada Hashem, Ali Elshamsy, Filippos Georgopoulos
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Can robotic surgery lead the way in the treatment of rectal cancer?
Jeonghee Han
Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(2): 87. CrossRef
Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer With a Wristed Articulated Instrument
Sung Uk Bae, Woon Kyung Jeong, Seong Kyu Baek
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2023; 66(1): e1. CrossRef
Short-term outcomes of da Vinci SP versus Xi for colon cancer surgery: a propensity-score matching analysis of multicenter cohorts
Jin-Min Jung, Young Il Kim, Yong Sik Yoon, Songsoo Yang, Min Hyun Kim, Jong Lyul Lee, Chan Wook Kim, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim, Chang Sik Yu
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2023; 17(6): 2911. CrossRef
Cirugía del cáncer de recto asistida por robot (X y Xi)
P. Rouanet, M. Lehiany, A. Mourregot, P.-E. Colombo, C. Taoum
EMC - Técnicas Quirúrgicas - Aparato Digestivo.2023; 39(4): 1. CrossRef
Chirurgia del cancro del retto mediante assistenza robotica (X e Xi)
P. Rouanet, M. Lehiany, A. Mourregot, P.-E. Colombo, C. Taoum
EMC - Tecniche Chirurgiche Addominale.2023; 29(4): 1. CrossRef
Chirurgie du cancer du rectum par assistance robotique (X et Xi)
P. Rouanet, M. Lehiany, A. Mourregot, P.-E. Colombo, C. Taoum
EMC - Techniques chirurgicales - Appareil digestif.2023; 40(3): 1. CrossRef
The clinical impact of robot‐assisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery associated with robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy
Anri Maeda, Hiroki Takahashi, Kaori Watanabe, Takeshi Yanagita, Takuya Suzuki, Nozomu Nakai, Yuzo Maeda, Kazuyoshi Shiga, Takahisa Hirokawa, Ryo Ogawa, Masayasu Hara, Yoichi Matsuo, Shuji Takiguchi
Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery.2022; 15(1): 36. CrossRef
Clinical Implication of Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Metastasis in Rectal Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy
In Ja Park
The Ewha Medical Journal.2022; 45(1): 3. CrossRef
Multidisciplinary treatment strategy for early rectal cancer
Gyung Mo Son, In Young Lee, Sung Hwan Cho, Byung-Soo Park, Hyun Sung Kim, Su Bum Park, Hyung Wook Kim, Sang Bo Oh, Tae Un Kim, Dong Hoon Shin
Precision and Future Medicine.2022; 6(1): 32. CrossRef
Direction of diagnosis and treatment improvement in colorectal cancer
In Ja Park
Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2022; 65(9): 540. CrossRef
Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, and Current Management
Seung Mi Yeo, Gyung Mo Son
The Ewha Medical Journal.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Robot-Assisted Colorectal Surgery
Young Il Kim
The Ewha Medical Journal.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectal surgery: operative technique and initial experiences
Bianka Hummel, Anna Nagel, Benjamin Süsoy, Linda Tarantik, Linda Michlmayr, Friedrich Längle, Clemens Bittermann
European Surgery.2021; 53(4): 175. CrossRef
Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes
Guglielmo Niccolò Piozzi, Seon Hahn Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2021; 37(6): 351. CrossRef
Functional outcomes after sphincter-preserving surgeries for low-lying rectal cancer: A review
Eun Jung Park, Seung Hyuk Baik
Precision and Future Medicine.2021; 5(4): 164. CrossRef

Original Articles

Malignant disease, Rectal cancer, Functional outcomes

Early and Late Functional Outcomes of Anal Sphincter-Sparing Procedures With Total Mesorectal Excision for Anorectal Adenocarcinoma: Osama Eldamshety, Sherif Kotb, Ashraf Khater, Sameh Roshdy, Mohamed Elashry, Mohamed S. Zahi, Hend M. Hamdey Rashed Elkalla, Waleed Elnahas, Omar Farouk, Adel Fathi, Ahmed Senbel, Emad-Eldeen Hamed, Khaled Abdelwahab, Islam Abdou Elzahby, Ahmed abdallah, Mahmoud Abdelaziz, Emanuele Lezoche; Ann Coloproctol. 2020;36(3):148-154. Published online April 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2018.07.19

5,796 View
112 Download
15 Web of Science
15 Citations

Abstract PDF

Background
The study aims to assess the functional outcome of anal sphincter sparing procedures (SSP) with TME for anorectal adenocarcinoma.
Methods
In a multicentric, prospective, single-group study in the period between December 2012 and November 2017, 93 patients presented with anorectal adenocarcinoma were included in the study. Sixty-nine patients underwent SSP with TME. SSP included the combined approach of transabdominal TME with intersphincteric resection (ISR) or transanal transabdominal TME (TATA). Using the Per Anal Examination Scoring System (PASS), postoperative anal function was assessed after one year.
Results
Bowel motility time was 50 (±19) hours. The time needed for narcotic analgesia was 54 (±18.8) hours. Mean hospital stay was 15.4 (±10.25) days. Incidence of evident fecal incontinence after ISR is 10.6% (7/67 cases). The Per Anal Examination Scoring System (PASS) findings of 69 cases are as follows: extremely hypotonic 8.6% (6 cases), slightly hypotonic 26.1% (18 cases), normal tone 58% (40 cases), slightly stenotic 3 cases (4.3%), or occluded 2.9% (2 cases). Urinary dysfunction occurred in one case (1.4%). Temporary diversion was performed in 61 patients (87.1%).
Conclusion
Sphincter preservation with TME for anorectal adenocarcinoma helps avoid permanent stoma and provides a reasonable functional outcome. PASS is a new application for postoperative assessment of anal function

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Transanal Minimally Invasive TME (TaTME) Versus Non-Endoscopic Transanal Intersphincteric Resection of Post-Neoadjuvant Ultralow Rectal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicentric, Matched Case–Control Study
Osama Eldamshety, Mohamed Abdekhalek, Amir M. Zaid, Essam Attia, Mohamed Zuhdy, Emanuel Lezoche, Giovanni Lezoche, Enjy Mosaad, Marwa Abogabal, Islam Elzahby
Indian Journal of Surgery.2025; 87(5): 912. CrossRef
Pathologic Implications of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-detected Extramural Venous Invasion of Rectal Cancer
Hyun Gu Lee, Chan Wook Kim, Jong Keon Jang, Seong Ho Park, Young Il Kim, Jong Lyul Lee, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim, Chang Sik Yu, Jin Cheon Kim
Clinical Colorectal Cancer.2023; 22(1): 129. CrossRef
International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons’ preference on rectal cancer treatment
Audrius Dulskas, Philip F. Caushaj, Domas Grigoravicius, Liu Zheng, Richard Fortunato, Joseph W. Nunoo-Mensah, Narimantas E. Samalavicius
Annals of Coloproctology.2023; 39(4): 307. CrossRef
Multidisciplinary treatment strategy for early rectal cancer
Gyung Mo Son, In Young Lee, Sung Hwan Cho, Byung-Soo Park, Hyun Sung Kim, Su Bum Park, Hyung Wook Kim, Sang Bo Oh, Tae Un Kim, Dong Hoon Shin
Precision and Future Medicine.2022; 6(1): 32. CrossRef
Watch and wait strategies for rectal cancer: A systematic review
In Ja Park
Precision and Future Medicine.2022; 6(2): 91. CrossRef
Current status and role of robotic approach in patients with low-lying rectal cancer
Hyo Seon Ryu, Jin Kim
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2022; 103(1): 1. CrossRef
Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer
Sung Uk Bae
Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2022; 65(9): 577. CrossRef
Update on Diagnosis and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer
Chan Wook Kim
The Ewha Medical Journal.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, and Current Management
Seung Mi Yeo, Gyung Mo Son
The Ewha Medical Journal.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Current Status and Future of Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer-An English Version
Sung Uk Bae
Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon.2022; 6(4): 221. CrossRef
Is It a Refractory Disease?- Fecal Incontinence; beyond Medication
Chungyeop Lee, Jong Lyul Lee
The Ewha Medical Journal.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Intraoperative neuromonitoring in rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Athina A. Samara, Ioannis Baloyiannis, Konstantinos Perivoliotis, Dimitrios Symeonidis, Alexandros Diamantis, Konstantinos Tepetes
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2021; 36(7): 1385. CrossRef
Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes
Guglielmo Niccolò Piozzi, Seon Hahn Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2021; 37(6): 351. CrossRef
Functional outcomes after sphincter-preserving surgeries for low-lying rectal cancer: A review
Eun Jung Park, Seung Hyuk Baik
Precision and Future Medicine.2021; 5(4): 164. CrossRef
Simplification or Accuracy: In Assessing Functional Outcomes After Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer
Kyung Jong Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2020; 36(3): 129. CrossRef

Transanal Endoscopic and Transabdominal Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid-to-Low Rectal Cancer: Comparison of Short-term Postoperative and Oncologic Outcomes by Using a Case-Matched Analysis: Ki Young Lee, Jung Kyoung Shin, Yoon Ah Park, Seong Hyeon Yun, Jung Wook Huh, Yong Beom Cho, Hee Cheol Kim, Woo Yong Lee; Ann Coloproctol. 2018;34(1):29-35. Published online February 28, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2018.34.1.29

7,714 View
116 Download
21 Web of Science
19 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

This study aimed to compare short-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes of a transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) to those of a transabdominal robotic TME.

Methods

A total of 62 patients with rectal cancer underwent transanal (n = 26) or robotic (n = 36) TME between June 2013 and December 2014. After case-matching by tumor location and TNM stage, 45 patients were included for analysis. The median follow-up period was 21.3 months. Operative, histopathologic and postoperative outcomes and recurrences were analyzed.

Results

Patients younger than 60 years of age were more frequently observed in the robotic TME group (75.0% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.059), but tumor location, cT and cN category, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy were not different between the 2 groups. Estimated blood loss was greater in the transanal group (283 mL vs. 155 mL, P = 0.061); however, the operation time and the rate of a diverting ileostomy and subsequent ileostomy repair were not different between the groups. The proximal resection margin was longer in the transanal TME group (20.8 cm ± 16.0 cm, P = 0.030), but the distal resection margins, involvements of the circumferential resection margin, TME quality, numbers of retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak and voiding difficulty, and recurrence rates for the 2 groups were not statistically different.

Conclusion

Transanal endoscopic and transabdominal robotic TME showed similar histopathologic and postoperative outcomes with the exception of the estimated blood loss and the proximal resection margin for a select group of patients.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing robotic total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer
Mohamed Ali Chaouch, Mohammad Iqbal Hussain, Maissa Jellali, Amine Gouader, Alessandro Mazzotta, Adriano Carneiro da Costa, Bassem Krimi, Jim Khan, Hani Oweira
Scandinavian Journal of Surgery.2025; 114(1): 73. CrossRef
Peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes of robotic versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
A. Y. Y. Mohamedahmed, S. Zaman, A. A. Wuheb, A. Ismail, M. Nnaji, A. A. Alyamani, H. A. Eltyeb, N. A. Yassin
Techniques in Coloproctology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer
Du Yong Gang, Lin Dong, Zhang DeChun, Zhang Yichi, Lu Ya
Frontiers in Oncology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection versus trans-anal total mesorectal excision for malignant rectal lesion: a prospective cohort trial
Ahmed F.A. Farag, Ahmed M.A. Mahmoud, Haitham M. Azmy, Abdrabbou N. Mashhour, Ahmed S. Khalifa, Yasser Debakey, Mohamed Y. Elbarmelgi
The Egyptian Journal of Surgery.2023; 42(4): 859. CrossRef
Robotic or transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) approach for rectal cancer, how about both? Feasibility and outcomes from a single institution
Yusuke Inoue, Jing Yu Ng, Chun-Ho Chu, Yi-Ling Lai, I.-Ping Huang, Shung-Haur Yang, Chien-Chih Chen
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2022; 16(1): 149. CrossRef
Long-term oncologic outcomes of transanal TME compared with transabdominal TME for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Jae Young Moon, Min Ro Lee, Gi Won Ha
Surgical Endoscopy.2022; 36(5): 3122. CrossRef
Multidisciplinary treatment strategy for early rectal cancer
Gyung Mo Son, In Young Lee, Sung Hwan Cho, Byung-Soo Park, Hyun Sung Kim, Su Bum Park, Hyung Wook Kim, Sang Bo Oh, Tae Un Kim, Dong Hoon Shin
Precision and Future Medicine.2022; 6(1): 32. CrossRef
Comparison of transanal total mesorectal excision and robotic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
Jung Kyong Shin, Hee Cheol Kim, Seong Hyeon Yun, Yoon Ah Park, Yong Beom Cho, Jung Wook Huh, Woo Yong Lee
Surgical Endoscopy.2021; 35(12): 6998. CrossRef
Statistical, Clinical, Methodological Evaluation of Local Recurrence Following Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review
Hans H. Wasmuth, Mahir Gachabayov, Les Bokey, Abe Fingerhut, Guy R. Orangio, Feza H. Remzi, Roberto Bergamaschi
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2021; 64(7): 899. CrossRef
A nationwide comparison of short‐term outcomes after transanal, open, laparoscopic, and robot‐assisted total mesorectal excision
Ilze Ose, Sharaf Karim Perdawood
Colorectal Disease.2021; 23(10): 2671. CrossRef
Robotic total mesorectal excision or transanal total mesorectal excision meta‐analysis
Michelle Zhiyun Chen, Yeng Kwang Tay, Satish K. Warrier, Alexander G. Heriot, Joseph C. Kong
ANZ Journal of Surgery.2021; 91(11): 2269. CrossRef
A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?
J. W. Butterworth, W. A. Butterworth, J. Meyer, C. Giacobino, N. Buchs, F. Ris, R. Scarpinata
Techniques in Coloproctology.2021; 25(11): 1183. CrossRef
Outcomes of robotic low anterior resection versus transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer
J L B Buan, W Z So, X C Lim, C S Chong
BJS Open.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Initial Experience of Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer
Jung Kyong Shin, Jung Wook Huh
Annals of Robotic and Innovative Surgery.2020; 1(1): 33. CrossRef
Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Current Evidences and Future Perspectives
Je-Ho Jang, Chang-Nam Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2020; 36(5): 293. CrossRef
Systemic review and network meta‐analysis comparing minimal surgical techniques for rectal cancer: quality of total mesorectum excision, pathological, surgical, and oncological outcomes
Emanuele Rausa, Federica Bianco, Michael E. Kelly, Alberto Aiolfi, Fausto Petrelli, Gianluca Bonitta, Giovanni Sgroi
Journal of Surgical Oncology.2019; 119(7): 987. CrossRef
Does transanal total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer improve histopathology metrics and/or complication rates? A meta-analysis
Mahir Gachabayov, Inna Tulina, Roberto Bergamaschi, Petr Tsarkov
Surgical Oncology.2019; 30: 47. CrossRef
Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes
Hyuk Hur
Annals of Coloproctology.2018; 34(1): 1. CrossRef
Evolution of surgery for rectal cancer: Transanal total mesorectal excision~new standard or fad?~
Hirotoshi Hasegawa, Koji Okabayashi, Masashi Tsuruta, Takashi Ishida, Fumitaka Asahara, Mark G Coleman
Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon.2018; 2(4): 115. CrossRef

Review

Optimal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: the Role of Robotic Surgery from an Expert's View: Nam-Kyu Kim, Jeonghyun Kang; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2010;26(6):377-387. Published online December 31, 2010; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2010.26.6.377

7,034 View
43 Download
67 Citations

Abstract PDF

Total mesorectal excision (TME) has gained worldwide acceptance as a standard surgical technique in the treatment of rectal cancer. Ever since laparoscopic surgery was first applied to TME for rectal cancer, with increasing penetration rates, especially in Asia, an unstable camera platform, the limited mobility of straight laparoscopic instruments, the two-dimensional imaging, and a poor ergonomic position for surgeons have been regarded as limitations. Robotic technology was developed in an attempt to reduce the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. The robotic system has many advantages, including a more ergonomic position, stable camera platform and stereoscopic view, as well as elimination of tremor and subsequent improved dexterity. Current comparison data between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery show similar intraoperative results and morbidity, postoperative recovery, and short-term oncologic outcomes. Potential benefits of a robotic system include reduction of surgeon's fatigue during surgery, improved performance and safety for intracorporeal suture, reduction of postoperative complications, sharper and more meticulous dissection, and completion of autonomic nerve preservation techniques. However, the higher cost for a robotic system still remains an obstacle to wide application, and many socioeconomic issues remain to be solved in the future. In addition, we need more concrete evidence regarding the merits for both patients and surgeons, as well as the merits compared to conventional laparoscopic techniques. Therefore, we need large-scale prospective randomized clinical trials to prove the potential benefits of robot TME for the treatment of rectal cancer.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The urinary and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hua Yang, Lei Zhou
Surgery Today.2024; 54(5): 397. CrossRef
Deep neuromuscular block attenuates intra‐abdominal pressure and inflammation and improves post‐operative cognition in prostate cancer patients following robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy
Guangjun Hu, Weidong Shao, Zhuo Chen, Bixi Li, Bo Xu
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic surgery is associated with a decreased risk of circumferential resection margin positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer undergoing mesorectal excision: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Mitsuru Ishizuka, Norisuke Shibuya, Hiroyuki Hachiya, Yusuke Nishi, Takahiro Kono, Masashi Takayanagi, Tetsutaro Nemoto, Keisuke Ihara, Takayuki Shiraki, Takatsugu Matsumoto, Shozo Mori, Takatoshi Nakamura, Taku Aoki, Tsunekazu Mizushima
European Journal of Surgical Oncology.2024; 50(10): 108538. CrossRef
Learning curve of robotic rectal surgery using risk-adjusted cumulative summation: a 5-year institutional experience
Hiroshi Oshio, Tsuneo Konta, Yukiko Oshima, Gen Yunome, Shinji Okazaki, Ichiro Kawamura, Yuya Ashitomi, Masaaki Kawai, Hiroaki Musha, Fuyuhiko Motoi
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Risk factors for and longitudinal course of male sexual dysfunction after robotic rectal cancer surgery
Marie Hanaoka, Hiroyasu Kagawa, Akio Shiomi, Hitoshi Hino, Shoichi Manabe, Yusuke Yamaoka, Yusuke Kinugasa
Colorectal Disease.2023; 25(5): 932. CrossRef
Comparing minimally invasive surgical and open approaches to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies - Systematic review and meta-analysis
Odhrán K. Ryan, Katie L. Doogan, Éanna J. Ryan, Mark Donnelly, Ian S. Reynolds, Ben Creavin, Matthew G. Davey, Michael E. Kelly, Rory Kennelly, Ann Hanly, Seán T. Martin, Des C. Winter
European Journal of Surgical Oncology.2023; 49(8): 1362. CrossRef
Current Status of Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery
Keisuke Minamimura, Keisuke Hara, Satoshi Matsumoto, Tomohiko Yasuda, Hiroki Arai, Daisuke Kakinuma, Yukio Ohshiro, Youichi Kawano, Masanori Watanabe, Hideyuki Suzuki, Hiroshi Yoshida
Journal of Nippon Medical School.2023; 90(4): 308. CrossRef
Potential urinary function benefits of initial robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the introductory phase
Hiroshi Oshio, Yukiko Oshima, Gen Yunome, Mitsuyasu Yano, Shinji Okazaki, Yuya Ashitomi, Hiroaki Musha, Yukinori Kamio, Fuyuhiko Motoi
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2022; 16(1): 159. CrossRef
Colorectal cancer surgery: by Cambridge Medical Robotics Versius Surgical Robot System—a single-institution study. Our experience
Shailesh P. Puntambekar, K. N. Rajesh, Arjun Goel, Mangesh Hivre, Suyog Bharambe, Mihir Chitale, Mangesh Panse
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2022; 16(3): 587. CrossRef
Surgical approach for rectal cancer: A network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME approaches
Odhrán K. Ryan, Éanna J. Ryan, Ben Creavin, Emanuele Rausa, Michael E. Kelly, Fausto Petrelli, Gianluca Bonitta, Rory Kennelly, Ann Hanly, Seán T. Martin, Des C. Winter
European Journal of Surgical Oncology.2021; 47(2): 285. CrossRef
Predictive and Diagnostic Biomarkers of Anastomotic Leakage: A Precision Medicine Approach for Colorectal Cancer Patients
Mark Gray, Jamie R. K. Marland, Alan F. Murray, David J. Argyle, Mark A. Potter
Journal of Personalized Medicine.2021; 11(6): 471. CrossRef
Transanal total mesorectal excision and transabdominal robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A retrospective study
Hiroshi Oshio, Yukiko Oshima, Gen Yunome, Shinji Okazaki, Ichiro Kawamura, Yuya Ashitomi, Hiroaki Musha, Masaaki Kawai, Fuyuhiko Motoi
Annals of Medicine and Surgery.2021; 70: 102902. CrossRef
Comparison of the quality of total mesorectal excision after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a multicenter, propensity score-matched study
Keehyun Park, Sohyun Kim, Hye Won Lee, Sung Uk Bae, Seong Kyu Baek, Woon Kyung Jeong
Korean Journal of Clinical Oncology.2021; 17(2): 82. CrossRef
Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Operative Technique and Review of the Literature
Hidetoshi Katsuno, Tsunekazu Hanai, Koji Masumori, Yoshikazu Koide, Keigo Ashida, Hiroshi Matsuoka, Yosuke Tajima, Tomoyoshi Endo, Masahiro Mizuno, Yeongcheol Cheong, Kotaro Maeda, Ichiro Uyama
Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon.2020; 4(1): 14. CrossRef
Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute
Homoud Alawfi, Ho Seung Kim, Seung Yoon Yang, Nam Kyu Kim
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology.2020; 11(4): 552. CrossRef
Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer (RALS): A Review of the Literature
Emil T. Filipov, Tsvetomir M. Ivanov
Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Research.2020; 13(2): 100. CrossRef
Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving total mesorectal excision: A propensity case‐matched analysis
Pavan Sugoor, Kamlesh Verma, Aditi Chaturvedi, Sadhana Kannan, Ashwin Desouza, Vikas Ostwal, Reena Engineer, Avanish Saklani
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2019;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal tumour surgery: a cohort study
D. Asklid, R. Gerjy, F. Hjern, K. Pekkari, U. O. Gustafsson
Colorectal Disease.2019; 21(2): 191. CrossRef
Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis
Xi-Yu Sun, Lai Xu, Jun-Yang Lu, Guan-Nan Zhang
Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies.2019; 28(3): 135. CrossRef
Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer and Cost-Effectiveness
Youngbae Jeon, Eun Jung Park, Seung Hyuk Baik
The Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery.2019; 22(4): 139. CrossRef
The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: comparison with open and laparoscopic surgery using a propensity score analysis
Soichiro Ishihara, Tomomichi Kiyomatsu, Kazushige Kawai, Toshiaki Tanaka, Keisuke Hata, Shinsuke Kazama, Eiji Sunami, Hiroaki Nozawa, Toshiaki Watanabe
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2018; 33(8): 1047. CrossRef
The impact of robotic surgery on quality of life, urinary and sexual function following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity score‐matched analysis with laparoscopic surgery
H. J. Kim, G.‐S. Choi, J. S. Park, S. Y. Park, C. S. Yang, H. J. Lee
Colorectal Disease.2018;[Epub] CrossRef
Laparoscopic vs Robotic Surgery in Colorectal Cases
Shalmali Alva
World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery with DVD.2018; 11(1): 43. CrossRef
Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and the effect of learning curve
Yu-Min Huang, Yan Jiun Huang, Po-Li Wei
Medicine.2017; 96(40): e8171. CrossRef
Use of the new da Vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da Vinci Si®
Luca Morelli, Simone Guadagni, Gregorio Di Franco, Matteo Palmeri, Giovanni Caprili, Cristiano D'Isidoro, Luigi Cobuccio, Emanuele Marciano, Giulio Di Candio, Franco Mosca
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2017; 13(1): e1728. CrossRef
Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid–low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy
Dae Ro Lim, Sung Uk Bae, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Nam Kyu Kim
Surgical Endoscopy.2017; 31(4): 1728. CrossRef
Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis
Yanlai Sun, Huirong Xu, Zengjun Li, Jianjun Han, Wentao Song, Junwei Wang, Zhongfa Xu
World Journal of Surgical Oncology.2016;[Epub] CrossRef
Totally robotic rectal resection: an experience of the first 100 consecutive cases
J. Ahmed, M. Nasir, K. Flashman, J. Khan, A. Parvaiz
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2016; 31(4): 869. CrossRef
Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Medium-Term Comparative Outcomes from a Multicenter Study
Carlo Corbellini, Roberto Biffi, Fabrizio Luca, Antonio Chiappa, Stefano Costa, Emilio Bertani, Stefano Bona, Davide Lombardi, Darina Tamayo, Edoardo Botteri, Bruno Andreoni
Tumori Journal.2016; 102(4): 414. CrossRef
Outcomes in 132 patients following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with greater than 5-year follow-up
John H. Marks, Renee Huang, Dominique McKeever, Morgan Greenfield
Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(1): 307. CrossRef
Effects of robotic rectal surgery on sexual and urinary functions in male patients
Shinji Ozeki, Kotaro Maeda, Tsunekazu Hanai, Koji Masumori, Hidetoshi Katsuno, Hiroshi Takahashi
Surgery Today.2016; 46(4): 491. CrossRef
Robotic Surgery for Colon and Rectal Cancer
Eun Jung Park, Seung Hyuk Baik
Current Oncology Reports.2016;[Epub] CrossRef
A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery
Michael S. Tam, Christodoulos Kaoutzanis, Andrew J. Mullard, Scott E. Regenbogen, Michael G. Franz, Samantha Hendren, Greta Krapohl, James F. Vandewarker, Richard M. Lampman, Robert K. Cleary
Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(2): 455. CrossRef
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy: Case-Matched Study of Short-Term Outcomes
Yong Sok Kim, Min Jung Kim, Sung Chan Park, Dae Kyung Sohn, Dae Yong Kim, Hee Jin Chang, Byung-Ho Nam, Jae Hwan Oh
Cancer Research and Treatment.2016; 48(1): 225. CrossRef
A Pooled Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer
Yue Wang, Guo-Hua Zhao, Helen Yang, Jie Lin
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques.2016; 26(3): 259. CrossRef
Robotics in Colorectal Surgery
Allison Weaver, Scott Steele
F1000Research.2016; 5: 2373. CrossRef
Recent advances in robotic surgery for rectal cancer
Soichiro Ishihara, Kensuke Otani, Koji Yasuda, Takeshi Nishikawa, Junichiro Tanaka, Toshiaki Tanaka, Tomomichi Kiyomatsu, Keisuke Hata, Kazushige Kawai, Hiroaki Nozawa, Shinsuke Kazama, Hironori Yamaguchi, Eiji Sunami, Joji Kitayama, Toshiaki Watanabe
International Journal of Clinical Oncology.2015; 20(4): 633. CrossRef
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: a Meta-analysis of Eight Studies
Binghong Xiong, Li Ma, Wei Huang, Qikang Zhao, Yong Cheng, Jingshan Liu
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2015; 19(3): 516. CrossRef
Simultaneous development of laparoscopy and robotics provides acceptable perioperative outcomes and shows robotics to have a faster learning curve and to be overall faster in rectal cancer surgery: analysis of novice MIS surgeon learning curves
George Melich, Young Ki Hong, Jieun Kim, Hyuk Hur, Seung Hyuk Baik, Nam Kyu Kim, A. Sender Liberman, Byung Soh Min
Surgical Endoscopy.2015; 29(3): 558. CrossRef
Robotic rectal surgery
Ahmet Rencuzogullari, Emre Gorgun
Journal of Surgical Oncology.2015; 112(3): 326. CrossRef
The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques
Seungwan Park, Nam Kyu Kim
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2015; 30(7): 837. CrossRef
SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA)
Shawn Tsuda, Dmitry Oleynikov, Jon Gould, Dan Azagury, Bryan Sandler, Matthew Hutter, Sharona Ross, Eric Haas, Fred Brody, Richard Satava
Surgical Endoscopy.2015; 29(10): 2873. CrossRef
Robotic and laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of 21 consecutive series
Sung Uk Bae, Avanish P. Saklani, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Nam Kyu Kim
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2014; 86(2): 76. CrossRef
Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection
Deborah S. Keller, Anthony J. Senagore, Justin K. Lawrence, Brad J. Champagne, Conor P. Delaney
Surgical Endoscopy.2014; 28(1): 212. CrossRef
Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis
Binghong Xiong, Li Ma, CaiQuan Zhang, Yong Cheng
Journal of Surgical Research.2014; 188(2): 404. CrossRef
Robotic assisted minimally invasive pelvic exenteration in advanced rectal cancer: review and case report
P. R. Nanayakkara, S. A. Ahmed, D. Oudit, S. T. O’Dwyer, C. R. Selvasekar
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2014; 8(2): 173. CrossRef
Robotic colorectal surgery: summary of the current evidence
E. H. Aly
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2014; 29(1): 1. CrossRef
Quality of total mesorectal excision and depth of circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer: a matched comparison of the first 20 robotic cases
M. Barnajian, D. Pettet, E. Kazi, C. Foppa, R. Bergamaschi
Colorectal Disease.2014; 16(8): 603. CrossRef
Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: Current immediate clinical and oncological outcomes
Sergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2014; 20(39): 14359. CrossRef
Laparoscopic versus Robotic-assisted Rectal Surgery: A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes
Monica T. Young, Gopal Menon, Timothy F. Feldmann, Steven Mills, Joseph Carmichael, Michael J. Stamos, Alessio Pigazzi
The American Surgeon™.2014; 80(10): 1059. CrossRef
Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer
Suguru Hasegawa, Koya Hida, Kenji Kawada, Yoshiharu Sakai
Nippon Daicho Komonbyo Gakkai Zasshi.2013; 66(10): 971. CrossRef
The current status of robotic oncologic surgery
Hua‐yin Yu, David F. Friedlander, Sunil Patel, Jim C. Hu
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.2013; 63(1): 45. CrossRef
Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Prophylactic Antibiotic Administration in Colorectal Surgery: A Survey of the Current Status in Korea
Byung Mo Kang, Kil Yeon Lee, Sun Jin Park, Suk-Hwan Lee
Annals of Coloproctology.2013; 29(4): 160. CrossRef
Impact of Robotic Surgery on Sexual and Urinary Functions After Fully Robotic Nerve-Sparing Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer
Fabrizio Luca, Manuela Valvo, Tiago Leal Ghezzi, Massimiliano Zuccaro, Sabina Cenciarelli, Cristina Trovato, Angelica Sonzogni, Roberto Biffi
Annals of Surgery.2013; 257(4): 672. CrossRef
Unique Complications of Robotic Colorectal Surgery
Sonia Ramamoorthy, Vincent Obias
Surgical Clinics of North America.2013; 93(1): 273. CrossRef
Robot-assisted low anterior resection in fifty-three consecutive patients: an Indian experience
R. D. Kenawadekar, R. Z. Dhange, A. Pandit, M. S. Bandawar, S. Joshi, G. Agarwal, A. P. Jagtap, S. Puntambekar
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2013; 7(4): 311. CrossRef
Does Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery Offer Improved Early Postoperative Outcomes?
Rosaria Scarpinata, Emad H. Aly
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2013; 56(2): 253. CrossRef
Initial experience of robotic intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer
Soo Yun Moon, Min-Su Park, Sun Jin Park, Kil Yeon Lee
Korean Journal of Clinical Oncology.2013; 9(1): 42. CrossRef
Current Status and Future Perspectives of Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
Hidetoshi Katsuno, Koutarou Maeda, Tsunekaze Hanai, Harunobu Sato, Koji Masumori, Yoshikazu Koide, Hiroshi Matsuoka, Miho Shiota, Tomoyoshi Endo, Shinji Matsuoka, Kohei Hatta, Masahiro Mizuno, Kunihiro Tohyama
Nippon Daicho Komonbyo Gakkai Zasshi.2013; 66(10): 982. CrossRef
Artificial interfaces (“AI”) in surgery: Historic development, current status and program implementation in the public health sector
Donagh A. Healy, Shane P. Murphy, John P. Burke, John C. Coffey
Surgical Oncology.2013; 22(2): 77. CrossRef
Robotic Use in Colorectal Disease: A Critical Analysis
Marco Ettore Allaix, Alessandro Fichera
Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2013; 24(1): 14. CrossRef
Oncologic Outcomes of a Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy for Colon Cancer: Results of a 3-Year Follow-up
Jung Hoon Cho, Dae Ro Lim, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Nam Kyu Kim
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology.2012; 28(1): 42. CrossRef
Current status of robotic rectal cancer surgery
Jeonghyun Kang, Kang Young Lee
Colorectal Cancer.2012; 1(6): 525. CrossRef
Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta‐analysis of short‐term outcome
S. Trastulli, E. Farinella, R. Cirocchi, D. Cavaliere, N. Avenia, F. Sciannameo, N. Gullà, G. Noya, C. Boselli
Colorectal Disease.2012;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic versus Laparoscopic Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis
Sameer Memon, Alexander G. Heriot, Declan G. Murphy, Mathias Bressel, A. Craig Lynch
Annals of Surgical Oncology.2012; 19(7): 2095. CrossRef
Robotic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review
Sami AlAsari, Byung Soh Min
ISRN Surgery.2012; 2012: 1. CrossRef
Risk Factor Analysis of Postoperative Complications After Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery
Jeonghyun Kang, Byung Soh Min, Yoon Ah Park, Hyuk Hur, Seung Hyuk Baik, Nam Kyu Kim, Seung Kook Sohn, Kang Young Lee
World Journal of Surgery.2011; 35(11): 2555. CrossRef

Original Articles

Effect on the Local Recurrence and the Survival of Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Rectal Cancer.: Choi, Byung Gwan , Kim, Hyung Soo , Seo, Kyeong Won , Ju, Jae Kyoon , Ryu, Seong Yeob , Park, Young Kyu , Kim, Hyeong Rok , Kim, Dong Yi , Kim, Young Jin; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2007;23(1):46-52.; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2007.23.1.46

1,946 View
10 Download

Abstract PDF: PURPOSE
One of the most common sites of recurrence after a curative resection of rectal cancer is the pelvis, and local control is a major goal of surgical treatment. The advantages of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection are regarded as questionable because lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis does not occur so frequently and because a lateral lymphadenectomy has a negative influence on the postoperative quality of life. The aim of this study was to clarify if lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLD) conferred any benefit.
METHODS
A total of 769 patients who underwent curative surgery for rectal cancer between 1981 and 2005 at the Department of Surgery, OOO Hospital, were reviewed retrospectively. One hundred ninety-three of these patients underwent a lateral pelvic lymph node dissection, and 576 patients had a total mesorectal excision with high ligation of the IMA.
RESULTS
There was no difference in pathological characteristics between the two groups. Patients who underwent a lateral pelvic lymph node dissection had no statistically significant difference in terms of the 5-year survival rate at stage II and III (64% vs 65% at stage II, P=0.391; 49% vs 47% at stage III, P=0.815).
CONCLUSIONS
A lateral pelvic lymph node dissection has no advantage as part of a standard operation for rectal cancer. A total mesorectal excision alone has good local control and survival compared with a lateral pelvic lymph node dissection.

Oncological Outcome after Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer.: Oh, Seung Yeop , Lee, Ho Won , Suh, Kwang Wook; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2006;22(6):396-401.

1,444 View
5 Download

Abstract PDF: PURPOSE
Literature shows that low rectal cancer, that especially undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR), is worse than mid or high rectal cancer. Two reasons have been proposed: diverse lymphatic channels in the low rectum, and technical difficulty in performing the APR. By comparison with the results reported in representative literature, we tried to find out whether low rectal cancer is really worse oncologically than high rectal cancer.
METHODS
For 133 patients who underwent an APR from 1995 to 2005, we examined the pathological characteristics of the cancer, the recurrence, the metastasis, the survival rates, and the prognostic factors.
RESULTS
The patient distribution according to stage was 15.9% in stage I, 33.6% in stage II, and 50.4% in stage III. The overall 5-year actuarial survival rate (5SR) of patients undergoing a curative resection (n=113) was 74.6%. Local pelvic recurrence was found in 11.5% of the patiennts, and systemic metastasis was noted in 14.2%. Among several prognostic variables, lymph node metastasis, the number of metastatic lymph nodes, adjuvant chemotherapy, and the distance between the tumor border and the dentate line were significant factors. In the multivariate analysis, lymph node metastasis was the most significant prognostic factor.
CONCLUSIONS
It is true that a curative resection in low rectal cancer is difficult due to the anatomy of pelvis, so knowledge of the anatomic features of the pelvis and surgical skill are important. definitely, acceptable oncological results can be attamed if the rule of curative resection is obeyed. We also found that lymph node involvement was the most significant prognostic factor in low rectal cancer.

Prognostic Significance of Circumferential Resection Margin following a Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer.: Baik, Seung Hyuk , Kim, Nam Kyu , Lee, Kang Young , Sohn, Seung Kook , Cho, Chang Hwan , Kim, Ho guen , Rha, Sun Young , Chung, Hyun Cheol; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2005;21(5):307-313.

1,275 View
6 Download

Abstract PDF: PURPOSE
Studies of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) in rectal cancer surgery have revealed that inadequate surgical excision correlates with a high risk of recurrence. This study was designed to evaluate the prognostic value of the CRM in rectal cancer.
METHODS
All 504 patients who underwent a total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between 1997 and 2001 were studied. The distance between the CRM and the tumor on pathology slides (HE stain, x 20 times) was measured. The CRM was stained by using the Davidson marking system(R) (Bradley Product, Inc. USA), and a micrometer was used for the measurement. We divided the patients into a negative CRM group (CRM >3 mm), an abutting CRM group (CRM < or =3 mm without involvement), and a positive CRM group (CRM was in the tumor), and compared the oncologic results among the groups.
RESULTS
The numbers of patients in the negative CRM, the abutting CRM, and the positive CRM groups were 452, 18, and 34 respectively. The mean follow- up durations were 45.1 months (range, 1.1~88.7), 41.9 months (range, 10.7~75.2), and 33.0 months (range, 4.8~83.4), respectively. The Aslter-Coller stages of all patients were from B2 to C3. The local recurrence rate, the systemic recurrence rate, and the combined recurrence rate were, respectively, 5.5%, 17.3%, and 3.8% in the negative CRM group (>3 mm), 5.6%, 38.9%, and 5.6% in the abutting CRM group, and 8.8%, 44.1%, and 8.8% in the positive CRM group. The five-year survival rates for the negative CRM, the abutted CRM and the positive CRM groups were 73.3%, 48.4%, and 25.5% (P<0.001), respectively, and the disease-free 5-year survival rates were 63.1%, 30.6%, 24.0% (P<0.001). The CRM was shown to be an independent prognostic factor by multivariate analyses adjusted for known predictors of outcome (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The prognosis for a member of the abutting or the positive CRM group was more unfavorable than it was for a member of the negative CRM group; therefore, measurement of the CRM should be reported in the pathologic report. For patients with an abutting or a positive CRM, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiotherapy should be considered for better oncologic outcomes.

Reviews

Sharp Pelvic Dissection for Abdominoperineal Resection for Distal Rectal Cancer Based on Anatomical and MRI Knowledge.: Kim, Nam Kyu; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2005;21(4):258-267.

1,362 View
30 Download

Abstract PDF: Even though sphincter saving surgery such as coloanal anastomosis or intersphincteric resection have been popular in era of Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) in distal rectal cancer, unreasonable sphincter saving surgery might cause a couple of troublesome complications in terms of oncologic or functional outcomes. Since preoperative staging work up recently have been developed with MRI or MDCT, it is important to assess whether rectal cancer invaded into surrounding sphincter or levator ani muscle based on MRI or MDCT coronal image study. If tumor is located at a very close distance or has invaded the adjacent sphincter muscle, the need of abdominoperineal resection is definite without any hesitation for curative resection. But, the actual number of cases of APR have been decreased in favor of sphincter preserving surgery even APR remains an important therapeutic option in the surgical treatment of low rectal cancer. Indication case for APR have become a intersphincteric resection or ultralow anterior resection and coloanal anastomosis Even patients who showed invasion of sphincter underwent sphincter saving surgery, lately proven safe in terms of recurrence and defecation functions. On practical view points on operative techniques, abdominal phase are same as TME techniques. Sharp pelvic dissection must be carried out along the visceral fascia enveloping the mesorectum to the levator ani muscle with preservation of pelvic autonomic nerve. Perineal phase dissection is a key process in APR. During perineal dissection, inadequate resection margin and blunt tissue dissection along the nonanatomical plane encourage implantation of a malignant cell and local recurrence. Moreever, it could lead to serious complications such as prostatic urethral injury, vaginal wall perforation, perineal sinus and fistula. Massive bleeding from pelvic side wall major vessels injury. Especially in males with very narrow pelvis, pelvic dissection is very difficult due to deep narrow and blunt sacral curvature of the pelvis. It is nearly impossible to reach the levator ani muscle and result in perineal dissections performed on excessively high levels. For colorectal surgeons with insufficient experience, it is difficult to dissect the rectum from the perineum upto the seminal vesicle level. In the classic pattern, anterior and lateral dissection from the prostate or vagina after the completion of posterior dissection. The dissected proximal colon was delivered outward through the perineal wound and with traction of the delivered portion of the colon, anterior dissection was performed. However, in patients with narrow pelvis, such delivery of the proximal colon through perineal wound can result in fractured tumor and local recurrence due to limited operation field. Therefore, it is mandatory that specimen must be delivered in situ after posterior, anterior and lateral dissection. During posterior dissection, gluteus muscle must be observed and removal of the ischiorectal fat tissue should be accomplished. In lateral dissection, levator ani muscle must be divided near the bony insertion. Finally, during anterior dissection, seminal vesicle and prostate gland must be exposed and neurovascular bundle observed at the 10 and 2 o'clock direction. In addition to TME on abdominal phase, Sharp Anatomical Perineal Dissection (SAPD) empowered by 3D concept based on MRI is a key process for prevention of local recurrence in APR.

Anatomic Basis of Sharp Pelvic Dissection for Total Mesorectal Excision with Pelvic Autonomic Nerve Preservation for Rectal Cancer.: Kim, Nam Kyu; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2004;20(6):424-434.

1,385 View
26 Download

Abstract PDF: Optimal goals of rectal cancer surgical treatment should include appropriate local control, higher survival rates, scrupulous operation procedures and good quality of life with maintained sexual and voiding function through the conservation of anal sphincter. Complete surgical removal of rectal cancer mass and adjacent lymph nodes in en-bloc package decreases the risk of local recurrence. Furthermore heightened awareness of better surgical techniques has created much interest in the anatomy involved in total mesorectal excision (TME), with particular focus on the fascial planes, nerve plexuses and their relationship to the surgical planes of excision. Total mesorectal excision focuses on several technical components and the quality of operated specimen. Sharp anatomic pelvic dissection along the visceral pelvic fascia must avoid any breach from the mesorectum haboring metastatic tumor deposits and lymph nodes. Also any coning down or blunt dissection should not be allowed. The rectal cancer mass and its surrounding mesorectum must be removed as one complete unit. Circumferential and distal resection margin must be also adequately obtained. Such sharp pelvic dissection instead of blunt dissection requires precised knowledge of the pelvic anatomy. Studying the hemisected cadevaric pelvis shows a clear relationship between the fascia and rectum. Also pelvic autonomic nerves can be saved to preserve the patient's sexual and voiding functions. Therefore the clincial importances of anatomical structures must be emphasized at each step of surgery. Upon such understanding of techniques, TME was performed in rectal cancer patients routinely and was able to obtain fair oncologic results and improved quality of life regarding sexual and voiding functions.

Original Article

Assessment of Sexual and Voiding Function after Total Mesorectal Excision with Pelvic Autonomic Nerve Preservation in Male Rectal Cancer Patients.: Kim, Nam Kyu , Aahn, Tae Wan , Park, Jea Kun , Lee, Kang Young , Lee, Wong Hee , Sohn, Seung Kook , Min, Jin Sik; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2002;18(5):287-293.

1,521 View
12 Download

Abstract PDF: PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to assess the safety of TME with pelvic autonomic nerve preservation in male rectal cancer patients in terms of voiding and sexual function.
METHODS
We performed uroflowmetry using Urodyn (Dantec, Denmark) and a standard questionnaire employing the IIEF (International Index of Erectile Function) and the IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) pre- and postoperatively in 68 male rectal cancer patients.
RESULTS
There were significant differences of mean maximal flow rate and voided volume before and after surgery (18.9+/-5.7 vs 13.7+/-7.0, 240+/-91.9 vs 143+/-78, P<0.05, P<0.05), respectively. But, there was no difference of residual volume before and after surgery (4.4 2.6 vs 8.1 4.4, P>0.05). The total IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) was increased after surgery from 6.2+/-5.8 to 9.8+/-5.9 (P<0.05). There were no changes of score for one of each seven IPSS items in from 49 patients (73.5 percent) to 61 patients (89.7 percent). Five IIEF (International Index of Erectile Function) domain score (erectile function, intercourse satisfaction, orgasmic function, sexual desire and overall satisfaction) was statistically decreased after surgery (18.2+/-9.3 vs 13.5+/-9.0, 8.4+/-4.2 vs. 4.4+/-2.9, 5.8+/-2.9, vs. 4.4+/-2.9, 6.1+/-2.4 vs. 4.8+/-2.0, 6.1+/-2.2 vs. 4.5+/-2.3, P<0.05, respectively. Erection was possible in 55 patients (80.9 percent), but penetration ability was possible in 51 patients (75 percent). Complete inability for erection and intercourse was observed in 3 patients (5.5 percent). Retrograde ejaculation was noted in 9 patients (13.2 percent). IIEF domains such as sexual desire and overall satisfaction were markedly decreased in 39 patients (57.4 percent), 43 patients (63.2 percent), respectively. Multiple regression analysis of factors affecting postoperative sexual dysfunction showed that over 60 years (sexual desire: P=0.019), within 6 months (erectile function: P=0.04, intercourse satisfaction: P=0.011, orgasmic function: P=0.03), lower rectal cancer (erectile function: P=0.02, intercourse satisfaction: P=0.036, orgasmic function: P=0.027) were significant factors.
CONCLUSIONS
TME with pelvic autonomic nerve preservation technique showed a safety and comparable data in preserving sexual and voiding function. The IPSS and IIEF questionnaire were useful and more investigative in assessing urinary and sexual function.

First
Prev
Page of 2
Next
Last

Search