Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Useful Technique That Continues to Evolve.

Colorectal cancer remains the 3rd most common cancer diagnosed among men and women in the United States. With improved screening, premalignant rectal lesions and rectal cancers are being detected at earlier stages. In addition, the use of neoadjuvant chemo- and radiotherapy has led to downstaging of larger lesions. There is growing interest among colorectal surgeons in local excision with organ preservation for patients with rectal cancer. There are multiple platforms for local excision of rectal cancers, including transanal excision (TAE), transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). TAMIS was developed as an affordable platform that uses conventional laparoscopic equipment familiar to many colorectal surgeons. TAMIS allows for full-thickness benign or malignant lesion excision in any quadrant without the need for patient repositioning. The literature has shown that, for appropriately selected patients, TAMIS provides superior excision quality compared to TAE. Furthermore, TAMIS has oncologic outcomes equivalent to TEM at a fraction of the cost. Recently, robotic TAMIS has been introduced, which takes advantage of the articulating instruments of the robotic platform without the need for a skilled assistant. This article will cover multiple technical aspects for TAMIS including patient selection and preparation, technical tips for successful excision and defect closure, and recent advances, including robotic TAMIS.

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for local excision of benign neoplasms and early-stage rectal cancer: efficacy and outcomes in the first 50 patients.

BACKGROUND: Since its inception in 2009, transanal minimally invasive surgery has been used increasingly in the United States and internationally as an alternative to local excision and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for local excision of neoplasms in the distal and mid rectum. Despite its increasing acceptance, the clinical benefits of transanal minimally invasive surgery have not yet been validated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the adequacy of transanal minimally invasive surgery for the local excision of benign and malignant lesions of the rectum. DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent transanal minimally invasive surgery for local excision of neoplasms at a single institution. SETTINGS: The study was conducted by a single group of colorectal surgeons at a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Eligible patients with early-stage rectal cancer and benign neoplasms were offered transanal minimally invasive surgery as a means for local excision. Data from these patients were collected prospectively in a registry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures included the feasibility of transanal minimally invasive surgery for local excision, resection quality, and short-term clinical results. RESULTS: : Fifty patients underwent transanal minimally invasive surgery between July 2009 and December 2011. Twenty-five benign neoplasms, 23 malignant lesions, and 2 neuroendocrine tumors were excised. All lesions were excised using transanal minimally invasive surgery without conversion to an alternate transanal platform. The average length of stay was 0.6 days (range, 0-6), and 68% of patients were discharged on the day of surgery. The average distance from the anal verge was 8.1 cm (range, 3-14 cm). All lesions were excised completely with only 2 fragmented specimens (4%). All specimens were removed with grossly negative margins, although 3 (6%) were found to have microscopically positive margins on final pathology. There were 2 recurrences (4%) at 6- and 18-month follow-up. Early complications occurred in 3 patients (6%). No long-term complications were observed at a median follow-up of 20 months. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective nature and midterm follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Transanal minimally invasive surgery is an advanced transanal platform that provides a safe and effective method for resecting benign neoplasms, as well as carefully selected, early-stage malignancies of the mid and distal rectum.

Screening for osteoporosis after trauma: a new approach using quantitative computed tomography of the skull.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of osteoporosis is important in the care of elderly patients at risk of trauma. While pelvis computed tomography (CT) is accurate in the measurement of bone mineral density, axial skull CT has not previously been evaluated for this purpose. This study investigated whether data from axial skull CT scans can screen for osteoporosis. METHODS: Bone density measurements were derived from digital analysis of routine scans of the head and pelvis using quantitative CT. The study took place from October 2010 to November 2011 at a medium-sized community hospital. The first study phase included patients older than 18 years who had both a head and a pelvis CT scan within 30 days. The known diagnostic value for osteoporosis on pelvis CT scans was used to derive a diagnostic value for head CT. The second study phase included adult trauma patients who underwent noncontrast head CT during an initial trauma evaluation. A subgroup analysis was performed during Phase II on patients older than 65 years to identify the incidence of fracture as it is affected by age and bone mineral density. RESULTS: Our data demonstrated that head CT was able to identify osteoporosis with a sensitivity of 0.70, a specificity of 0.81, and an accuracy of 0.76 compared with pelvic CT. Of 261 trauma patients, 54% had bone disease based on axial skull CT criteria. Patients older than 65 years with a positive screen result for osteoporosis on head CT were twice as likely to have a fracture. CONCLUSION: Analysis of data from head CT scans has the potential to provide a useful screen for osteoporosis. Adding this analysis to CT scans performed for elderly trauma patients could result in improved diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, level II.

The mortality risk from motor vehicle injuries in California has increased during the last decade.

BACKGROUND: Organized trauma systems and trauma centers are thought to improve trauma outcomes. It is clear that injured patients who receive care in trauma centers have survival advantages. However, large regions of California still do not have access to trauma centers. Many injured patients in California continue to receive their care in nontrauma center hospitals. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes in California counties with and without trauma centers. In addition, we wished to query the efficacy of the current statewide trauma system by asking whether mortality after motor vehicle trauma in California has improved during the last decade. METHODS: We performed a retrospective outcome study. The California highway patrol provided data from all motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) and mortality during the years 1999 to 2008 for the 58 counties in California. Percent fatality was calculated as the number of motor vehicle fatalities divided by the number of injuries. Data were analyzed to compare outcomes in counties with and without trauma centers. Furthermore, demographic data were studied to analyze the relationship of population and hospital density on mortality. RESULTS: Mortality was significantly lower in counties with trauma centers. Low population and hospital density independently correlated with increased mortality. Injury mortality rates after MVCs increased during the decade both in counties with and without trauma centers. CONCLUSION: Overall, the presence of a trauma center improved the chances of survival after an MVC in California counties. However, mortality rates after injuries increased during the decade both in counties with and without trauma centers. Future efforts to improve outcomes for injured patients in California will require new approaches, which must include improving both access to trauma centers and the care provided in nontrauma center hospitals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.