Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Surg Endosc ; 30(10): 4626-31, 2016 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26823054

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) represents the ultimate expression of minimally invasive surgery. We have developed and present here an initial feasibility and safety study of transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) with splenic flexure release, high ligation of the IMA and IMV, and side-to-end coloanal anastomosis with temporary diverting ileostomy for rectal cancer. METHODS: A program of full NOTES TME resection with release of the splenic flexure, high ligation of the IMA/IMV, with side-to-end coloanal anastomosis was performed transanally from December 2013 to July 2014. Demographics, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data were prospectively obtained. Operative components were broken into TME, colonic mobilization, splenic flexure release, IMA/IMV transection, transanal extraction of specimen, and coloanal anastomosis for analysis of performance completion. RESULTS: There were 3 women and 1 man on whom we operated. Mean age was 56 (46-65). Mean BMI was 26 (23.8-30.2). The operation was completed entirely transanally in 2 patients. Transanal component completion of the operation was as follows: TME in 3/4; colonic mobilization in 4/4; splenic flexure release in 3/4; IMA/IMV transection in 3/4; transanal specimen extraction in 4/4; coloanal anastomosis in 4/4. Abdominal time for completion of component parts was: splenic flexure release 4:53 (min:s), IMA/IMV 19:43, completion of TME 13:41. Mean EBL was 194 cc (25-500). Aside from stoma site, there were no abdominal incisions. There were no mortalities. Mesorectum was intact in all 4 patients and with negative circumferential and distal margins. CONCLUSION: This experience supports the feasibility and safety of a true NOTES TME. The critical anatomic views demonstrated on video affirm the potential of this approach for distal rectal cancer. Colorectal surgery represents the most logical application for NOTES. While highly promising, a great deal of work remains to develop the technique and applicability of NOTES colorectal surgery.


Assuntos
Canal Anal/cirurgia , Anastomose Cirúrgica/métodos , Carcinoma/cirurgia , Colo/cirurgia , Ileostomia/métodos , Mesentério/cirurgia , Cirurgia Endoscópica por Orifício Natural/métodos , Neoplasias Retais/cirurgia , Idoso , Colo Transverso/cirurgia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos do Sistema Digestório/métodos , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Humanos , Ligadura , Masculino , Artéria Mesentérica Inferior/cirurgia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Minimamente Invasivos , Cirurgia Endoscópica Transanal
2.
Surg Endosc ; 29(6): 1492-9, 2015 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25277473

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Single-port (SP) surgery has been characterized as having limited applicability regarding procedure, disease, and patient characteristics. There is a question if SP procedures offer disadvantages or advantages to multiport (MP) colorectal surgery. We hypothesize that SP is equivalent to MP and is a safe alternative in the full spectrum of colorectal disease and procedures. METHODS: A case-matched analysis of a prospectively maintained database to compare perioperative outcomes in SP versus MP was performed. Criteria included age, gender, BMI, previous abdominal surgery, previous XRT, disease process, and procedure. 95 exact matches for all 7 criteria were found between 159 SP and 1,617 MP cases. Perioperative outcomes, surgical technique, morbidity, mortality, local recurrence, and 5-year survival were analyzed. RESULTS: There was lower mean EBL in SP but no difference in transfusion requirement. OR time for SP left colectomy was shorter, with a trend to shorter OR times found in all procedures. 99 % SP and 98 % MP had no intra-operative complications. Conversion to open was equivalent (0/1). Mean largest incision was smaller for SP. There were no differences in return of bowel function or length of hospital stay. There were no mortalities. There were no differences in perioperative morbidity, local recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall 5-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: SP is a safe alternative to MP colorectal surgery across the full array of procedures in equivalent patients. This study demonstrates SP has less blood loss, smaller incisions, is quicker in left colectomy, and tends to be quicker across all procedures. Conversion and morbidity rates are equivalent to MP, without compromise in quality of surgical technique. While proper training is essential, concerns regarding the inability to use SP laparoscopic colorectal surgery safely are unfounded in nearly exactly matched patients. These issues will require further study as SP laparoscopic colorectal surgery is practiced more widely.


Assuntos
Colectomia/métodos , Doenças do Colo/cirurgia , Laparoscopia/instrumentação , Doenças Retais/cirurgia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Desenho de Equipamento , Feminino , Humanos , Tempo de Internação/tendências , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Recidiva , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA