Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection Research Articles

Induction of potentially lethal hypermagnesemia, ischemic colitis, and toxic megacolon by a preoperative mechanical bowel preparation: report of a case.

A 67-year-old man was diagnosed with rectal cancer. The tumor invaded the subserosal layer, but it was not large, and there was no sign of obstruction. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy reduced the size of the tumor. The patient was admitted to our hospital for surgery. For mechanical bowel preparation, he ingested 34 g of magnesium citrate (Magcorol P®), but then developed severe shock, a disturbance of consciousness, and acidemia, and he required catecholamines and mechanical ventilation. X-ray, CT, and laboratory tests revealed ischemic colitis, toxic megacolon, and hypermagnesemia (16.3 mg/dL). After 2 days of temporary hemodialysis and an enema to reduce his blood magnesium concentration, he recovered and left the intensive care unit. However, the left side of his colon had suffered ischemic damage and become irreversibly atrophied. One month later, he underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and left-side colectomy for the rectal cancer and severe ischemic colitis of the left side of the colon. Histopathology confirmed the rectal cancer with a grade 2 chemotherapeutic effect and severe ischemic colitis of the left side of the colon. Hence, the present case suggests that severe ischemic colitis, toxic megacolon, and hypermagnesemia can occur after taking a magnesium laxative without obstruction of the intestine.

Use of a multi-instrument access device in abdominoperineal resections.

BACKGROUND:Laparoscopic colorectal surgery results in less post-operative pain, faster recovery, shorter length of stay and reduced morbidity compared with open procedures. Less or minimally invasive techniques have been developed to further minimise surgical trauma and to decrease the size and number of incisions. This study describes the safety and feasibility of using an umbilical multi-instrument access (MIA) port (Olympus TriPort+) device with the placement of just one 12-mm suprapubic trocar in laparoscopic (double-port) abdominoperineal resections (APRs) in rectal cancer patients.PATIENTS AND METHODS:The study included 20 patients undergoing double-port APRs for rectal cancer between June 2011 and August 2013. Preoperative data were gathered in a prospective database, and post-operative data were collected retrospectively.RESULTS:The 20 patients (30% female) had a median age of 67 years (range 46-80 years), and their median body mass index (BMI) was 26 kg/m2 (range 20-31 kg/m2). An additional third trocar was placed in 2 patients. No laparoscopic procedures were converted to an open procedure. Median operating time was 195 min (range 115-306 min). A radical resection (R0 resection) was achieved in all patients, with a median of 14 lymph nodes harvested. Median length of stay was 8 days (range 5-43 days).CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic APR using a MIA trocar is a feasible and safe procedure. A MIA port might be of benefit as an extra option in the toolbox of the laparoscopic surgeon to further minimise surgical trauma.

Pagetoid spreadを伴う肛門管癌に対して腹腔鏡下腹会陰式直腸切断術を施行した１例

Pagetoid spreadを伴う肛門管癌に対して腹腔鏡下腹会陰式直腸切断術を施行した１例

The Value of Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision and Circumferential Resection Margin in the Treatment of Distal Rectal Cancer: Single Center Experience

Total mesorectal excision (TME) has emerged as a method for complete cure of rectal cancer with promising results. The present study aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility and the clinical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic TME with abdominoperineal resection (APR) for distal rectal carcinoma. Twenty patients with distal rectal carcinoma were treated with laparoscopic APR and TME in the period of January 2012 to March 2015. Patients’ demographics, clinical symptoms, operation time, complications, pathological characteristics of the rectal tumor, and the local and distant recurrence of the tumor were recorded and analyzed. The study included 11 (55%) female and 9 (45%) male of a mean age of 46.9 ± 10.8 years. The mean distance of the tumor from the anal verge was 3.35 ± 0.9 cm. The mean operation time was 182 ± 7 minutes. Adenocarcinoma accounted for 55% of cases, whereas mucinous adenocarcinoma was detected in 40% of patients, and signet ring carcinoma in 5%. The mean circumferential resection margin (CRM) was 4.6 ±3.5 mm. The mean duration of hospital stay was 9.21± 6.9 days. Perioperative complications were recorded in seven patients (35%). Five (25%) cases were converted to open surgery. The median follow-up duration was 18 months. Local recurrence was diagnosed in two (10%) cases. Laparoscopic TME is a technically feasible procedure, yet requires adequate training and sufficient knowledge of the anatomy of the pelvis. Although all patients underwent APR and 90% of them received neoadjuvant treatment; the local recurrence was still higher than other studies which can be attributed to the pathologic characters and the stage of the tumors.

Circular Stapler-Assisted Extraperitoneal Colostomy in Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection: a Single Surgeon Experience

BackgroundNowadays, laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) not only has the same oncologic safety of open surgery and but also has the common advantages of laparoscopic surgery. However, given the difficulty in operation and long operative time, laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy construction is rarely practiced and reported. In this study, we describe technique of extraperitoneal colostomy using circular stapler following LAPR and demonstrate its efficacy and safety. MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data of 42 patients who underwent LAPR with circular stapler-assisted extraperitoneal colostomy in our department between July 2011 and June 2014. ResultsThe mean time for extraperitoneal colostomy construction was 25 min (18–33 min). The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery time, and duration of postoperative hospital stay were 160 min (115–225 min), 45 ml (10–250 ml), 33 h (26–45 h), and 8.6 days (6–13 days), respectively; 4.8 % of the patients had postoperative short-term complications. There were no stenosis, prolapse, and parastomal hernia observed in follow-up period. At 6 months after operation, 26 patients (62 %) claimed to be satisfied with their postoperative stool habits, 29 patients (69 %) had sensation to defecate per stoma, and 11 (26.2 %) patients had the ability to defer defecation for solid or liquid stool per stoma. ConclusionCircular stapler-assisted extraperitoneal colostomy is an easy, effective, and safe technique following LAPR and appears to minimize the occurrence of stomal complications and improve the quality of life for patients.

A case of metastatic carcinoma of anal fistula caused by implantation from rectal cancer.

This case involved an 80-year-old man who was seen for melena. Further testing revealed a tubular adenocarcinoma 50 mm in size in the rectum. In addition, an anal fistula was noted behind the anus along with induration. A biopsy of tissue from the external (secondary) opening of the fistula also revealed adenocarcinoma. Nodules suspected of being metastases were noted in both lung fields. The patient was diagnosed with rectal cancer, a cancer arising from an anal fistula, and a metastatic pulmonary tumor, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy was begun. A laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection was performed 34 days after 6 cycles of mFOLFOX-6 therapy. Based on pathology, the rectal cancer was diagnosed as moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, and this adenocarcinoma had lymph node metastasis (yp T3N2aM1b). There was no communication between the rectal lesion and the anal fistula, and a moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma resembling the rectal lesion was noted in the anal fistula. Immunohistochemical staining indicated that both the rectal lesion and anal fistula were cytokeratin 7 (CK7) (−) and cytokeratin 20 (CK20) (+), and the patient’s condition was diagnosed as implantation of rectal cancer in an anal fistula.In instances where an anal fistula develops in colon cancer, cancer implantation in that fistula must also be taken into account, and further testing should be performed prior to surgery.

Prospective, Randomized Study on the Use of a Prosthetic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia of Permanent Colostomy.

Prophylactic placement of a mesh has been suggested to prevent parastomal hernia, but evidence to support this approach is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic placement of a prophylactic, dual-component, intraperitoneal onlay mesh around a colostomy is safe and prevents parastomal hernia formation after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. This study was conducted at 2 university and 3 central Finnish hospitals. From 2010 to 2013, 83 patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer were recruited. After withdrawals and exclusions, the outcome of 70 patients, 35 patients in each study group, could be examined. In the intervention group, an end colostomy was created with placement of a intraperitoneal, dual-component onlay mesh and compared with a group with a traditional stoma. The main outcome measures were the incidence of clinically and radiologically detected parastomal hernias and their extent 12 months after surgery. Stoma-related morbidity and the need for surgical repair of parastomal hernia were secondary outcome measures. Parastomal hernia was observed by clinical inspection in 5 intervention patients (14.3%) and in 12 control patients (32.3%; p = 0.049). Surgical repair of parastomal hernia was performed in 1 control patient (3.2%) and in none of the patients in the intervention group. CT detected parastomal hernia in 18 intervention patients (51.4%) and in 17 control patients (53.1%; p = 1.00). The extent of hernias was similar according to European Hernia Society classification (p = 0.41). Colostomy-related morbidity (32.3% vs 14.3%; p = 0.140) did not differ between the study groups. The study was limited by its small size and short follow-up time. Prophylactic laparoscopic placement of intraperitoneal onlay mesh does not significantly reduce the overall risk of radiologically detected parastomal hernia after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. However, prophylactic mesh repair was associated with significantly lower risk of clinically detected parastomal hernia.

Early Outcome of Laparoscopic Abdomino-Perineal Resection (Apr) in Low Rectal and Anal Cancer

Background: Colorectal cancer is the second most common malignancy in the western countries and the rectum is the most frequent site involved. Carcinoma in the lower part of the rectum involving anal canal especially sphincter or purely in the anal canal is now successfully managed by laparoscopic APR and postoperative morbidities are less and recovery is uneventful. In the current age of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has been established as equivalent to conventional open surgery in oncologic clearance. The advantages of laparoscopic surgery are smaller incisions, shorter recovery time and less wound related complications. However the narrow confines and angulations of the bony pelvis and the standard practice of autonomic nerve sparing total mesorectum excision has made laparoscopic surgery in the setting of rectal cancer more challenging. Methods: This randomized controlled trial study was carried out in the Colorectal Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka from May, 2012 to April, 2013. 25 patients were treated by conventional open APR and rest 25 patients were treated by laparoscopic APR. All Patients of two groups were selected by simple random method (lottery). Early outcome variables after surgery were evaluated. Results: During early post-operative follow up, abdominal surgical site infection was found more in conventional open APR patients than that of laparoscopic APR patients (p<0.05). Other morbidity and colostomy related complications were not significant in early post-operative period in both groups of population. Degree of pain was also less after laparoscopic APR. Only stoma function occurred earlier after Laparoscopic APR and ambulation, feeding liquid and feeding solid all had no difference for both group. Shorter mean length of postoperative total hospital stay and early hospital discharge was possible after Laparoscopic APR. Oncologic parameters were equivalent to those of open procedures. Conclusion: The patients undergoing laparoscopic APR surgery had overall superior outcomes in term of surgical site infection, postoperative pain, postoperative total hospital stay and had equivalent oncologic clearance than those of open procedures in low rectal and anal cancer.mesorectum excision

Dual-port laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection using the intended stoma site as the multichannel port.

We describe a novel minimally invasive procedure: dual-port laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection using a SILS port, and report our experience of using this to treat ten patients with lower rectal cancer. A SILS port was placed in the left lower quadrant at the intended colostomy site. A 5-mm trocar was inserted at the umbilicus at the subsequent drain site. Via a standard laparoscopic medial-to-lateral approach, the inferior mesenteric artery and vein were ligated and total mesorectal excision was performed. Via a perineal approach, the specimen was retrieved from the perineal wound, and a sigmoid colostomy was created at the site of the SILS port. Ten consecutive patients with lower rectal cancer at clinical stage T3 or lower underwent the procedure at our institution. The procedure was completed successfully in all patients, without any intraoperative problems and all postoperative outcomes were satisfactory. Thus, dual-port laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection can be performed safely and feasibly in selected patients.

Clinical application of artificial anal reconstruction after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection in low rectal cancer patients

To assess the outcome and quality of life artificial anal reconstruction after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection(APR) in low rectal cancer patients. Clinical data of 60 cases with low rectal cancer undergoing APR in our department from January 2010 to January 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Sixty patients were divided into 2 groups according to anal reconstruction procedure, inclding 32 patients of abdominal colostomy as colostomy group and 28 patients of in-situ artificial anal reconstruction as anal reconstruction group. After a median follow-up of 1 year, the quality of life was assessed by Fetal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale(FIQL scale) and Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Scores(CCS-FIS scale). In addition, the outcome and complications were compared between the two groups. Compared with the colostomy group, the anal reconstruction group presented longer operation time [(204.8 ± 18.8) min vs. (173.3 ± 23.5) min, P<0.01], later passage time [(45.1 ± 9.3) h vs. (27.7 ± 9.4) h, P<0.01], and higher incidence of mucosal edema(42.9% vs. 18.8%, P<0.05). There were no significant differences in average hospital stay and other complication morbidities(all P>0.05). After follow-up, the embarrassment scale in anal reconstruction group was better compared to colostomy group(3.1 vs. 2.2, P<0.01). However, there were no significant differences in the lifestyle, coping and depression scales between the two groups (all P>0.05). Twenty(71.4%) patients in anal reconstruction group had satisfactory continence 1 year after operation. In-situ artificial anal reconstruction after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection can preserve fecal function in low rectal cancer patients and improve the quality of life after APR operation.

Laparoscopic Repair of Perineal Hernia Using a Double-Mesh Technique

Introduction Perineal herniation following pelvic surgery, including abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration is a rare condition but can present with serious complications. Multiple methods of repair are possible including either an abdominal or perineal approach. Laparoscopic abdominal repairs have been described. Case Presentation An 83 year-old lady, under follow-up following a laparoscopic APR two years previously for a T2N0M0 low rectal cancer, presented with a symptomatic perineal hernia which caused significant impairment in her daily living activities. She had no major comorbidities and was keen for intervention. She was electively admitted for a laparoscopic repair of perineal hernia. This was performed using a double-mesh technique, which allows strengthening of the repair as a feasible alternative to consider in repair of this difficult complication. Conclusions This technique is feasible as an alternative to standard laparoscopic or perineal repair of perineal herniation. Further studies are required to demonstrate its long-term efficacy.

A population-based comparison of open versus minimally invasive abdominoperineal resection

BackgroundAlthough minimally invasive colorectal surgery increases widely, outcomes following its use in complex operations such as the abdominoperineal resection (APR) remain indeterminate. MethodsA review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2008 to 2011) of all patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open APR was conducted. Risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes were assessed using regression modeling accounting for patient characteristics, comorbidities, and surgical procedure. ResultsWe identified 3,191 admissions meeting inclusion criteria (1,019 laparoscopic; 2,172 open). The conversion rate was 5%. Mortality was low and similar between groups (.88% vs .83%, P = .91). In-hospital complication rates were lower in the laparoscopic group (19% vs 29%, odds ratio .59, 95% confidence interval .49 to .71, P < .01), but conversion was associated with a higher rate (29% vs 18%, P < .01). Finally, a laparoscopic APR was associated with a shorter length of stay (5.3 vs 7.0 days, P < .01). ConclusionLaparoscopic APR is associated with improved outcomes and may be the preferred approach by surgeons with appropriate skills and experience.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection in Low Rectal Cancer Using Different Pelvic Drainages

The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility and efficiency of different pelvic drainage routes after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) for rectal cancer by assessing short-term outcomes. Clinicopathological data of 76 patients undergoing LAPR for very low rectal cancer were reviewed retrospectively between June 2005 and June 2014. Outcomes were evaluated considering short- term results. Of 76 relevant patients at our institution in the period of study, trans-perineal drainage of the pelvic cavity was performed in 17 cases. Compared with the trans-perineal group, the length of hospital stay was shorter in the trans-abdominal group, while the duration of drainage and the infection rates of the perineal wounds between two groups showed no significant differences. The outcomes of this study suggest that trans-abdominal drainage of pelvic cavity is a reliable and feasible procedure, the duration of drainage, infection rates and the healing rates of the perineal wounds being acceptable. Trans-abdominal drainage has a more satisfactory effect after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma.

Laparoscopic permanent sigmoid stoma creation through the extraperitoneal route versus transperitoneal route. A meta-analysis of stoma-related complications.

Objectives:To compare laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy with transperitoneal colostomy for construction of a permanent stoma by measuring the incidence of parastomal hernia, and other postoperative complications related to colostomy.Methods:The meta-analysis was carried out in the General Surgery Department of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China in 2014. A literature search of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane database, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) from the years 1990 to 2014 was performed. The literature searches were carried out using medical subject headings and free-text words: extraperitoneal colostomy, transperitoneal colostomy, laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy, rectal cancer, laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection, parastomal hernia, permanent stoma, and colostomy-related complications. Two different reviewers carried out the search and evaluated studies independently.Results:One randomized controlled trial and 6 retrospective studies were included. A total of 378 patients (209 extraperitoneal colostomy and 169 transperitoneal colostomy) were identified. Our analysis showed that there was a significantly lower rate of parastomal hernia (odds ratio 0.10; 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.29, p<0.0001) in the extraperitoneal colostomy group. However, the other stoma-related complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups.Conclusion:Colostomy construction via the extraperitoneal route using a laparoscopic approach can largely reduce the incidence of parastomal hernia. Laparoscopic permanent sigmoid stoma creation through the extraperitoneal route should be the first choice after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

Perineal Hernia after Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Perineal hernias are uncommon complications following laparoscopic abdominoperineal operations. There is still very little known about perineal hernia. There are only few case reports to describe the repair of postoperative hernias after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the literature. Here we present one patient with a perineal hernia after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. The surgical management with manual purse-string suture is described and discussed in this case report.

腹腔鏡下直腸切断術後に発症した続発性会陰ヘルニアの1例

腹腔鏡下直腸切断術後に発症した続発性会陰ヘルニアの1例

Clinical application of circular anastomotic stapler in colostomy after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

Clinical application of circular anastomotic stapler in colostomy after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

Evaluating the Efficacy of Open Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperianal Resection in Management of Patients with Low Rectal Cancer

Background: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) along with permanent colostomy is the standard method of low rectal cancer operation and resection. The laparoscopic APR provides better visualization of pelvic structures compared to the open approach. Disadvantages of the laparoscopic approach have been reported as longer operation duration and requirement of expensive equipment Although this issue has been investigated extensively worldwide, data is limited from Iran. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcome of Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection (APR) with open APR in patients with low rectal cancer in Shiraz, southern Iran. Patients and Methods: This was a non-randomized controlled trial study performed in Shahid Faghihi Hospital affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences from 2007 to 2012. We included all patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic or open APR with permanent colostomy. Both groups were evaluated regarding oncology results. Volume of intraoperative bleeding, short-term complications, operation to diet interval and duration of hospitalization were recorded and further compared between the laparoscopy and open APR groups. Results: Overall, 24 patients were included in this study of whom 11 underwent laparoscopy and 13 underwent open APR. The two study groups were comparable regarding age (P = 0.747), gender (P = 0.605), tumor stage (P = 0.116), tumor histopathology grade (P = 0.421) and distance from the anal verge (P = 0.711). The duration of operation was comparable between the groups (P = 0.336). Those who underwent laparoscopy had significantly lower intraoperative bleeding (485.5 ± 139.8 vs. 658.3 ± 183.2; P = 0.024), shorter operation-diet interval (2.27 ± 0.46 vs. 3.15 ± 0.37; P < 0.001) and shorter duration of hospitalization compared to the open APR group (4.09 ± 0.53 vs. 4.76 ± 0.59; P = 0.008). Conclusions: Laparoscopic APR is associated with minimal perioperative bleeding, shorter operation-diet interval and shorter durations of hospitalization compared to open approach in patients with low rectal cancer who had not received neoadjuvant chemo radiotherapy. Oncologic results in this operation were comprisable to open procedure because the mesorectal, anus and sphincter complex excision are performed in the same method. . Therefore, laparoscopy could be the method of choice for APR.

Early Outcome of Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection, Our Experience in Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University

Anorectal malignancies that require abdominoperineal resection (APR) is very common. Laparoscopic APR can be a better option. Laparoscopic APR has been seldom studied. This study aims to evaluate perioperative and early postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic APRs performed for the treatment of ano-rectal carcinomas. Patients operated for ano-rectal carcinoma between June 2011 to June 2013 in Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU) were observed. Demographics, tumor and procedure-related parameters, perioperative results, early postoperative outcomes and survival were observed. Total 22 patients were under went laparoscopic APR. Male: Female ratio was 15:7 (68.18%: 31.82%). Age range was from 30-65 years with a mean age of 36.55 years. Mean operation time was 165 minutes and mean post-operative hospital stay was 6.8 days. Overall complication rate was 45.45%. Laparoscopic APR is a safe, effective and technically feasible procedure. It can be a better operative procedure than open APR. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/fmcj.v8i2.20281 Faridpur Med. Coll. J. 2013;8(2): 53-55

Mesh-based transperineal repair of a perineal hernia after a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

A perineal hernia (PH) is formed by a protrusion of intra-abdominal viscera through a defect in the pelvic floor. This is a rare complication after a conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR). However, the risk of a PH may be increased after a laparoscopic resection because this technique can cause fewer postoperative adhesions, predisposing the small bowel to sliding down toward the pelvis. However, only a few case reports describe the transperineal approach for the repair of a PH after a laparoscopic APR. We present a case of a PH after a laparoscopic APR; the PH was repaired with synthetic mesh by using a transperineal approach. A transperineal approach using a mesh to reconstruct the pelvic floor is less invasive and more effective. We suggest that this technique should probably be the first choice for treating an uncomplicated PH that occurs after a laparoscopic APR.