Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 10/2019

01-10-2019 | Urethra Reconstruction | Endoluminal Surgery

Robotic transanal minimally invasive rectal mucosa harvest

Authors: Katherine N. Howard, Lee C. Zhao, Aaron C. Weinberg, Michael Granieri, Mitchell A. Bernstein, Alexis L. Grucela

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 10/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Buccal mucosal grafts (BMG) are traditionally used in urethral reconstruction. There may be insufficient BMG for applications requiring large grafts, such as urethral stricture after gender-affirming phalloplasty. Rectal mucosa in lieu of BMG avoids oral impairment, while potentially affording less postoperative pain and larger graft dimensions. Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) using laparoscopic instruments has been described. Due to technical challenges of harvesting a sizable graft within the rectal lumen, we adopted a new robotic approach. We demonstrate the feasibility and safety of a novel technique of Robotic TAMIS (R-TAMIS) in the harvest of rectal mucosa for the purpose of onlay graft urethroplasty.

Methods

Six patients (ages 28–60) presenting with urethral stricture and one vaginal stricture underwent robotic rectal mucosal harvest. The procedure, which was first studied on an inanimate bovine colon model, was performed under general anesthesia in lithotomy position using the GelPOINTTM Path Transanal Access. Mucosa was harvested robotically after submucosal hydrodissection. Graft size harvested correlated with surface area needed for urethral or vaginal reconstruction. Following specimen retrieval, flexible sigmoidoscopy confirmed hemostasis. The graft was placed as an onlay for urethroplasty.

Results

There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Mean graft size was 11.4 × 3.0 cm. All reconstructions had excellent graft take. All patients recovered without morbidity or mortality. They reported minimal postoperative pain and all regained bowel function on postoperative day one. Patients with prior BMG harvests subjectively self-reported less postoperative pain and greater quality of life. There have been no long-term complications at a median follow-up of 17 months.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first use of R-TAMIS for rectal mucosa harvest. Our preliminary series indicates this approach is feasible and safe, constituting a promising minimally invasive technique for urethral reconstruction. Prospective studies evaluating graft outcomes and donor site morbidity with more long-term follow-up are needed.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fichtner J et al (2004) Long-term outcome of ventral buccal mucosa onlay graft urethroplasty for urethral stricture repair. Urology 64(4):648–650PubMedCrossRef Fichtner J et al (2004) Long-term outcome of ventral buccal mucosa onlay graft urethroplasty for urethral stricture repair. Urology 64(4):648–650PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Lumen N, Oosterlinck W, Hoebeke P (2012) Urethral reconstruction using buccal mucosa or penile skin grafts: systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int 89(4):387–394PubMedCrossRef Lumen N, Oosterlinck W, Hoebeke P (2012) Urethral reconstruction using buccal mucosa or penile skin grafts: systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int 89(4):387–394PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
go back to reference Morey AF, McAninch JW (1996) When and how to use buccal mucosal grafts in adult bulbar urethroplasty. Urology 48(2):194–198PubMedCrossRef Morey AF, McAninch JW (1996) When and how to use buccal mucosal grafts in adult bulbar urethroplasty. Urology 48(2):194–198PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Browne BM, Vanni AJ (2017) Use of alternative techniques and grafts in urethroplasty. Urol Clin North Am 44(1):127–140PubMedCrossRef Browne BM, Vanni AJ (2017) Use of alternative techniques and grafts in urethroplasty. Urol Clin North Am 44(1):127–140PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Chauhan S, Yadav SS, Tomar V (2016) Outcome of buccal mucosa and lingual mucosa graft urethroplasty in the management of urethral strictures: a comparative study. Urol Ann 8(1):36–41PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Chauhan S, Yadav SS, Tomar V (2016) Outcome of buccal mucosa and lingual mucosa graft urethroplasty in the management of urethral strictures: a comparative study. Urol Ann 8(1):36–41PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Horiguchi A (2017) Substitution urethroplasty using oral mucosa graft for male anterior urethral stricture disease: current topics and reviews. Int J Urol 24(7):493–503PubMedCrossRef Horiguchi A (2017) Substitution urethroplasty using oral mucosa graft for male anterior urethral stricture disease: current topics and reviews. Int J Urol 24(7):493–503PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Song LJ et al (2009) Lingual mucosal grafts for anterior urethroplasty: a review. BJU Int 104(8):1052–1056PubMedCrossRef Song LJ et al (2009) Lingual mucosal grafts for anterior urethroplasty: a review. BJU Int 104(8):1052–1056PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Palmer DA et al (2016) Urethral reconstruction with rectal mucosa graft onlay: a novel, minimally invasive technique. J Urol 196(3):782–786PubMedCrossRef Palmer DA et al (2016) Urethral reconstruction with rectal mucosa graft onlay: a novel, minimally invasive technique. J Urol 196(3):782–786PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Xu YM et al (2004) 1-stage urethral reconstruction using colonic mucosa graft for the treatment of a long complex urethral stricture. J Urol 171(1):220–223PubMedCrossRef Xu YM et al (2004) 1-stage urethral reconstruction using colonic mucosa graft for the treatment of a long complex urethral stricture. J Urol 171(1):220–223PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Xu YM et al (2009) Urethral reconstruction using colonic mucosa graft for complex strictures. J Urol 182(3):1040–1043PubMedCrossRef Xu YM et al (2009) Urethral reconstruction using colonic mucosa graft for complex strictures. J Urol 182(3):1040–1043PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
go back to reference Donkov II et al (2006) Dorsal onlay augmentation urethroplasty with small intestinal submucosa: modified Barbagli technique for strictures of the bulbar urethra. Int J Urol 13(11):1415–1417PubMedCrossRef Donkov II et al (2006) Dorsal onlay augmentation urethroplasty with small intestinal submucosa: modified Barbagli technique for strictures of the bulbar urethra. Int J Urol 13(11):1415–1417PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Farahat YA et al (2009) Endoscopic urethroplasty using small intestinal submucosal patch in cases of recurrent urethral stricture: a preliminary study. J Endourol 23(12):2001–2005PubMedCrossRef Farahat YA et al (2009) Endoscopic urethroplasty using small intestinal submucosal patch in cases of recurrent urethral stricture: a preliminary study. J Endourol 23(12):2001–2005PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Hauser S et al (2006) Small intestine submucosa in urethral stricture repair in a consecutive series. Urology 68(2):263–266PubMedCrossRef Hauser S et al (2006) Small intestine submucosa in urethral stricture repair in a consecutive series. Urology 68(2):263–266PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Liu Y et al (2017) Urethral reconstruction with autologous urine-derived stem cells seeded in three-dimensional porous small intestinal submucosa in a rabbit model. Stem Cell Res Ther 8(1):63PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Liu Y et al (2017) Urethral reconstruction with autologous urine-derived stem cells seeded in three-dimensional porous small intestinal submucosa in a rabbit model. Stem Cell Res Ther 8(1):63PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Palminteri E et al (2012) Long-term results of small intestinal submucosa graft in bulbar urethral reconstruction. Urology 79(3):695–701PubMedCrossRef Palminteri E et al (2012) Long-term results of small intestinal submucosa graft in bulbar urethral reconstruction. Urology 79(3):695–701PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Atallah S, Albert M, Larach S (2010) Transanal minimally invasive surgery: a giant leap forward. Surg Endosc 24(9):2200–2205PubMedCrossRef Atallah S, Albert M, Larach S (2010) Transanal minimally invasive surgery: a giant leap forward. Surg Endosc 24(9):2200–2205PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Albert MR et al (2013) Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for local excision of benign neoplasms and early-stage rectal cancer: efficacy and outcomes in the first 50 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 56(3):301–307PubMedCrossRef Albert MR et al (2013) Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for local excision of benign neoplasms and early-stage rectal cancer: efficacy and outcomes in the first 50 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 56(3):301–307PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Lim SB et al (2012) Feasibility of transanal minimally invasive surgery for mid-rectal lesions. Surg Endosc 26(11):3127–3132PubMedCrossRef Lim SB et al (2012) Feasibility of transanal minimally invasive surgery for mid-rectal lesions. Surg Endosc 26(11):3127–3132PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Martin-Perez B et al (2014) A systematic review of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) from 2010 to 2013. Tech Coloproctol 18(9):775–788PubMedCrossRef Martin-Perez B et al (2014) A systematic review of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) from 2010 to 2013. Tech Coloproctol 18(9):775–788PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference McLemore EC et al (2014) Transanal minimally invasive surgery for benign and malignant rectal neoplasia. Am J Surg 208(3):372–381PubMedCrossRef McLemore EC et al (2014) Transanal minimally invasive surgery for benign and malignant rectal neoplasia. Am J Surg 208(3):372–381PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Althumairi AA, Gearhart SL (2015) Local excision for early rectal cancer: transanal endoscopic microsurgery and beyond. J Gastrointest Oncol 6(3):296–306PubMedPubMedCentral Althumairi AA, Gearhart SL (2015) Local excision for early rectal cancer: transanal endoscopic microsurgery and beyond. J Gastrointest Oncol 6(3):296–306PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Gill S et al (2015) Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS): standardizing a reproducible procedure. J Gastrointest Surg 19(8):1528–1536PubMedCrossRef Gill S et al (2015) Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS): standardizing a reproducible procedure. J Gastrointest Surg 19(8):1528–1536PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference deBeche-Adams T et al (2017) Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS): a clinical spotlight review. Surg Endosc 31(10):3791–3800PubMedCrossRef deBeche-Adams T et al (2017) Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS): a clinical spotlight review. Surg Endosc 31(10):3791–3800PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Atallah S et al (2012) Excision of a rectal neoplasm using robotic transanal surgery (RTS): a description of the technique. Tech Coloproctol 16(5):389–392PubMedCrossRef Atallah S et al (2012) Excision of a rectal neoplasm using robotic transanal surgery (RTS): a description of the technique. Tech Coloproctol 16(5):389–392PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Vallribera Valls F et al (2014) Robotic transanal endoscopic microsurgery in benign rectal tumour. J Robot Surg 8(3):277–280PubMedCrossRef Vallribera Valls F et al (2014) Robotic transanal endoscopic microsurgery in benign rectal tumour. J Robot Surg 8(3):277–280PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Erenler I et al (2017) Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (R-TAMIS) with the da Vinci Xi System—a video vignette. Colorectal Dis 19(4):401PubMedCrossRef Erenler I et al (2017) Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (R-TAMIS) with the da Vinci Xi System—a video vignette. Colorectal Dis 19(4):401PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Verheijen PM, Consten EC, Broeders IA (2014) Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: experience with a first case. Int J Med Robot 10(4):423–426PubMedCrossRef Verheijen PM, Consten EC, Broeders IA (2014) Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: experience with a first case. Int J Med Robot 10(4):423–426PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Nikolavsky D et al (2017) Urologic sequelae following phalloplasty in transgendered patients. Urol Clin North Am 44(1):113–125PubMedCrossRef Nikolavsky D et al (2017) Urologic sequelae following phalloplasty in transgendered patients. Urol Clin North Am 44(1):113–125PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Frey JD et al (2017) An update on genital reconstruction options for the female-to-male transgender patient: a review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(3):728–737PubMedCrossRef Frey JD et al (2017) An update on genital reconstruction options for the female-to-male transgender patient: a review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(3):728–737PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Morrison SD, Chen ML, Crane CN (2017) An overview of female-to-male gender-confirming surgery. Nat Rev Urol 14(8):486PubMedCrossRef Morrison SD, Chen ML, Crane CN (2017) An overview of female-to-male gender-confirming surgery. Nat Rev Urol 14(8):486PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Salgado CJ et al (2016) Prelamination of neourethra with uterine mucosa in radial forearm osteocutaneous free flap phalloplasty in the female-to-male transgender patient. Case Rep Urol 2016:1–4CrossRef Salgado CJ et al (2016) Prelamination of neourethra with uterine mucosa in radial forearm osteocutaneous free flap phalloplasty in the female-to-male transgender patient. Case Rep Urol 2016:1–4CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Gomez Ruiz M et al (2015) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 58(1):145–153PubMedCrossRef Gomez Ruiz M et al (2015) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 58(1):145–153PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Robotic transanal minimally invasive rectal mucosa harvest
Authors
Katherine N. Howard
Lee C. Zhao
Aaron C. Weinberg
Michael Granieri
Mitchell A. Bernstein
Alexis L. Grucela
Publication date
01-10-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06893-w

Other articles of this Issue 10/2019

Surgical Endoscopy 10/2019 Go to the issue