Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hybrid abdominal robotic approach with conventional transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: feasibility and outcomes from a single institution

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is currently recognised as the standard of care for patients with rectal cancer. Complete TME is known to be associated with lower rates of recurrence. Robotic and endoscopic TaTME approaches are reported to offer excellent proximal and distal rectal dissection into the TME plane, however, combining both approaches in a hybrid procedure could potentially optimise visualisation of the dissection plane and confer improved circumferential and distal margin rates. The aim of this study was to analyse the feasibility of a hybrid robotic abdominal approach with conventional TaTME for rectal cancer. Furthermore, pathological and patient outcomes were assessed. A review of prospectively maintained databases was undertaken to assess all patients undergoing robotic TME surgery for rectal tumours from August 2016 to October 2017. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics and outcomes were collated from patient charts and hospital databases. All patients underwent a modified Cecil approach after multidisciplinary team discussion. Eight patients (7 male, 1 female) underwent a combined hybrid approach with a median age of 60 years (range 47–73) and BMI of 29.5 (range 20–39.1) kg/m2. Median distance from the anorectal junction (ARJ) was 7.5 (range 4–13) cm. Six patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment with chemoradiotherapy. Patients had a median length of stay (LOS) of 9 (range 4–33) days. There were no intra-operative complications encountered and no patients required a conversion to an open procedure. Complications included one anastomotic leak and one presacral collection. All patients had a complete TME with RO resection with a median number of lymph nodes harvested was 22 (range 6–37) lymph nodes. This hybrid technique is a feasible, practical and operatively favourable approach to rectal cancer surgery with initial pathological outcomes and complication profile equivalent to other approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Garlipp B, Ptok H, Schmidt U, Stübs P, Scheidbach H, Meyer F et al (2012) Factors influencing the quality of total mesorectal excision. Br J Surg 99(5):714–720 (John Wiley and Sons)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, Grieve R, Khanna S, Couture J et al (2009) Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR1 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 373(9666):821–828 (Elsevier)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Helbach MV, Deijen CL, Velthuis S, Bonjer HJ, Tuynman JB, Sietses C (2016) Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma: short-term outcomes and experience after 80 cases. Surg Endosc 30(2):464–470 (Springer US)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Buchs NC, Nicholson GA, Ris F, Mortensen NJ, Hompes R (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision: a valid option for rectal cancer? World J Gastroenterol 21(41):11700–11708 (Baishideng Publishing Group Inc)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Fernández-Hevia M, Delgado S, Castells A, Tasende M, Momblan D, Díaz del Gobbo G et al (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer: short-term outcomes in comparison with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 261(2):221–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ma Bin, Gao P, Song Y, Zhang C, Zhang C, Wang L et al (2014) Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. BMC Cancer 16(1):380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Simillis C, Hompes R, Penna M, Rasheed S, Tekkis PP (2016) A systematic review of transanal total mesorectal excision: is this the future of rectal cancer surgery? Colorectal Dis 18(1):19–36

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. de Souza AL, Prasad LM, Marecik SJ, Blumetti J, Park JJ, Zimmern A et al (2010) Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the potential advantage of robotic assistance. Dis Colon Rectum 53(12):1611–1617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Atallah S, Martin-Perez B, Albert M, de Beche-Adams T, Nassif G, Hunter L et al (2013) Transanal minimally invasive surgery for total mesorectal excision (TAMIS–TME): results and experience with the first 20 patients undergoing curative-intent rectal cancer surgery at a single institution. Tech Coloproctol 18(5):473–480 (Springer Milan)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bondeven P, Hagemann Madsen RH, Laurberg S, Pedersen BG (2013) Extent and completeness of mesorectal excision evaluated by postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Surg 100(10):1357–1367 (1st ed. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Deijen CL, Velthuis S, Tsai A, Mavroveli S, de Lange-de Klerk ESM, Sietses C et al (2016) COLOR III: a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing transanal TME versus laparoscopic TME for mid and low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 30(8):3210–3215 (Springer US)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bjørn MX, Perdawood SK (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision–a systematic review. Dan Med J 62(7):A5105

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Velthuis S, Helbach MV, Tuynman JB, Le T-N, Bonjer HJ, Sietses C (2015) Intra-abdominal bacterial contamination in TAMIS total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma: a prospective study. Surg Endosc 29(11):3319–3323 (Springer US)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fernández-Hevia M, Delgado S, Castells A, Tasende M, Momblan D, Díaz del Gobbo G et al (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer: short-term outcomes in comparison with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 261(2):221–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Velthuis S, Helbach MV, Tuynman JB, Le T-N, Bonjer HJ, Sietses C (2015) Intra-abdominal bacterial contamination in TAMIS total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma: a prospective study. Surg Endosc 29(11):3319–3323 (Springer US)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Atallah S (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision: full steam ahead. Tech Coloproctol 19(2):57–61 (Springer Milan)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koedam TWA, van Ramshorst GH, Deijen CL, Elfrink AKE, Meijerink WJHJ, Bonjer HJ et al (2017) Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: effects on patient-reported quality of life and functional outcome. Tech Coloproctol 21(1):25–33 (Springer International Publishing)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hellan M, Anderson C, Ellenhorn JDI, Paz B, Pigazzi A (2007) Short-term outcomes after robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 14(11):3168–3173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, Hur H, Sohn S-K, Cho CH et al (2009) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol 16(6):1480–1487 (Springer-Verlag)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pigazzi A, Luca F, Patriti A, Valvo M, Ceccarelli G, Casciola L et al (2010) Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 17(6):1614–1620 (Springer-Verlag)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J et al (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(16):1569–1580

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bravo R, Trépanier JS, Arroyave MC, Fernández-Hevia M, Pigazzi A, Lacy AM (2017) Combined transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) with laparoscopic instruments and abdominal robotic surgery in rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 21(3):233–235 (Springer International Publishing)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Motson RW, Whiteford MH, Hompes R, Albert M, Miles WFA, The Expert Group (2016) Current status of trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) following the Second International Consensus Conference. Colorectal Dis 18(1):13–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Velthuis S, Nieuwenhuis DH, Ruijter TEG, Cuesta MA, Bonjer HJ, Sietses C (2014) Transanal versus traditional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma. Surg Endosc 28(12):3494–3499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Larsen SG, Pfeffer F, Kørner H (2019) Norwegian moratorium on transanal total mesorectal excision. Br J Surg 106:1120–1121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Abbott SC, Stevenson ARL, Bell SW et al (2017) An assessment of an Australasian pathway for the introduction of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Colorectal Dis 20:O1–O6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, Wynn G, Austin R, Warusavitarne J, Moran B, Hanna GB, Mortensen NJ, Tekkis PP (2019) International TaTME registry collaborative. incidence and risk factors for anastomotic failure in 1594 patients treated by transanal total mesorectal excision: results from the international TaTME registry. Ann Surg 269(4):700–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Helbach MV, Deijen CL, Velthuis S, Bonjer HJ, Tuynman JB, Sietses C (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma: short-term outcomes and experience after 80 cases. Surg Endosc 30(2):464–470 (Springer US)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Fürst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(3):210–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Le Voyer TE, Sigurdson ER, Hanlon AL, Mayer RJ, Macdonald JS, Catalano PJ et al (2003) Colon cancer survival is associated with increasing number of lymph nodes analyzed: a secondary survey of intergroup trial INT-0089. J Clin Oncol 21(15):2912–2919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. de Campos-Lobato LF, Stocchi L, de Sousa JB, Buta M, Lavery IC, Fazio VW et al (2013) Less than 12 nodes in the surgical specimen after total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiation: it means more than you think! Ann Surg Oncol 20(11):3398–3406 (7 ed. Springer US)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No sources of support.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Amanda Nikolic and Peadar S. Waters are the co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Surgery and Gastroenterology Clinical Institute, Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Australia

    Amanda Nikolic, Peadar S. Waters, Oliver Peacock, Colin Chan-Min Choi, Amrish Rajkomar, Alexander G. Heriot, Philip Smart & Satish Warrier

  2. Department of Surgery, The Surgery Centre, Austin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Melbourne, VIC, 3084, Australia

    Amanda Nikolic & Philip Smart

  3. Department of Surgery, Eastern Health, 5 Arnold Street, Box Hill, Melbourne, VIC, 3128, Australia

    Philip Smart

  4. Colorectal Surgery Unit, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

    Peadar S. Waters, Oliver Peacock, Alexander G. Heriot & Satish Warrier

  5. The Alfred Hospital, 55 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia

    Alexander G. Heriot & Satish Warrier

Authors
  1. Amanda Nikolic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peadar S. Waters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oliver Peacock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Colin Chan-Min Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amrish Rajkomar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexander G. Heriot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Philip Smart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Satish Warrier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satish Warrier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors AN, PSW, OP, CC, AGH, PS, and SW declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MOV 84883 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MOV 23801 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nikolic, A., Waters, P.S., Peacock, O. et al. Hybrid abdominal robotic approach with conventional transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: feasibility and outcomes from a single institution. J Robotic Surg 14, 633–641 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01032-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01032-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation