Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 9/2019

01-09-2019 | Rectal Cancer | MULTIMEDIA ARTICLE

Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery with rectal eversion and total extra-abdominal resection

Authors: S. K. Efetov, I. A. Tulina, V. D. Kim, Y. Kitsenko, A. Picciariello, P. V. Tsarkov

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 9/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE)surgery is gaining popularity among colorectal surgeons. The technical aspects of this new procedure are still debated and many variations have been presented in the last decade.

Methods

We propose a new variation of transanal NOSE after robotic and laparoscopic LAR consisting of rectal eversion by using a special rod after laparoscopic TME. Eversion makes it possible to perform resection and placement of the anvil extracorporeally. We included a video demonstration of the technique. Clinical Patient Grading Assessment Scale was calculated 1 month after stoma closure and the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS )score was calculated preoperatively and 1 month after stoma closure.

Results

Seven female patients with rectal cancer, all with normal BMI, underwent laparoscopic (n = 5) or robotic (n = 2) TME with rectal eversion. No intraoperative and postoperative complications were reported. One month after stoma closure, the median Clinical Patient Grading Assessment Scale was 5 (range 3–7), which means “a good deal better”. The median LARS score was 14 (IQR 14–19,5) preoperatively and 19 (IQR 19–21,5) 1 month after stoma closure.

Conclusions

This variation of NOSE surgery was safe and effective in our patient population.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Law WL, Foo DCC (2017) Comparison of short-term and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic resection for mid- and distal rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 31:2798–2807CrossRefPubMed Law WL, Foo DCC (2017) Comparison of short-term and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic resection for mid- and distal rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 31:2798–2807CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Pedziwiatr M, Malczak P, Mizera M et al (2017) There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes. Tech Coloproctol 21:595–604CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pedziwiatr M, Malczak P, Mizera M et al (2017) There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes. Tech Coloproctol 21:595–604CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Ihedioha U, Mackay G, Leung E et al (2008) Laparoscopic colorectal resection does not reduce incisional hernia rates when compared with open colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 22:689–692CrossRefPubMed Ihedioha U, Mackay G, Leung E et al (2008) Laparoscopic colorectal resection does not reduce incisional hernia rates when compared with open colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 22:689–692CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Emmertsen KJ, Laurberg S (2012) Low anterior resection syndrome score: development and validation of a symptom-based scoring system for bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 255:922–928CrossRef Emmertsen KJ, Laurberg S (2012) Low anterior resection syndrome score: development and validation of a symptom-based scoring system for bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 255:922–928CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Heckert J, Sankineni A, Hughes WB et al (2016) Gastric electric stimulation for refractory gastroparesis: a prospective analysis of 151 patients at a single center. Dig Dis Sci 61:168–175CrossRefPubMed Heckert J, Sankineni A, Hughes WB et al (2016) Gastric electric stimulation for refractory gastroparesis: a prospective analysis of 151 patients at a single center. Dig Dis Sci 61:168–175CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Heald RJ, Ryall RD (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1:1479–1482CrossRef Heald RJ, Ryall RD (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1:1479–1482CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Han FH, Hua LX, Zhao Z et al (2013) Transanal natural orifice specimen extraction for laparoscopic anterior resection in rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 19:7751–7757CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Han FH, Hua LX, Zhao Z et al (2013) Transanal natural orifice specimen extraction for laparoscopic anterior resection in rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 19:7751–7757CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Winslow ER, Fleshman JW, Birnbaum EH et al (2002) Wound complications of laparoscopic vs open colectomy. Surg Endosc 16:1420–1425CrossRefPubMed Winslow ER, Fleshman JW, Birnbaum EH et al (2002) Wound complications of laparoscopic vs open colectomy. Surg Endosc 16:1420–1425CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Guan X, Liu Z, Longo A et al (2019) International consensus on natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 7:24–31CrossRef Guan X, Liu Z, Longo A et al (2019) International consensus on natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 7:24–31CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery with rectal eversion and total extra-abdominal resection
Authors
S. K. Efetov
I. A. Tulina
V. D. Kim
Y. Kitsenko
A. Picciariello
P. V. Tsarkov
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 9/2019
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02058-y

Other articles of this Issue 9/2019

Techniques in Coloproctology 9/2019 Go to the issue

Controversies in Colorectal Surgery

Why most published meta-analysis findings are false