How to Optimize Autonomic Nerve Preservation in Total Mesorectal Excision: Clinical Topography and Morphology of Pelvic Nerves and Fasciae
- 640 Downloads
Urogenital dysfunction after rectal and pelvic surgery was significantly decreased with the introduction of nerve-preserving dissection and total mesorectal excision (TME). Profound topographic knowledge of the pelvic connective tissue spaces is indispensable for identification and preservation of autonomic pelvic nerves. The purpose of this cadaver study was to highlight the course of important autonomous nerve structures and to identify potential injury sites.
Eleven cadavers were dissected according to TME with subsequent preparation of the pelvic nerves. The pelves of further three cadavers were sliced horizontally and cubed. Specimens were harvested and processed for light microscopy and immunohistochemistry to analyze both fascia and the types of nerves and their localization.
The neurovascular bundle, arising from the inferior pelvic plexus, shows the highest nerve density. At the lateral edge of Denonvilliers’ fascia, it pierces the parietal pelvic fascia. Several fine nerve branches spread into the loose periprostatic tissue up to the prostate or pass the prostate toward the urinary bladder. En route, we consistently find perikarya of autonomic nerves. Within the mesorectum, nerve fibers are distributed heterogeneously with laterally high densities, ventrally and dorsally low densities.
The highest risk for pelvic nerve damage—apart from lesions of the superior hypogastric plexus itself—is anterolaterally of the rectum where the neurovascular bundle releases from the pelvic sidewall. Careful dissection helps to identify and protect these nerve structures. The retroprostatic Denonvilliers’ fascia contains no important nerve structures.
KeywordsTotal Mesorectal Excision Autonomic Nerve Pudendal Nerve Neurovascular Bundle Lateral Ligament
- 2.Junginger T, Hossfeld DK, Sauer R, Hermanek P (1998) Adjuvante und neoadjuvante Therapie bei Kolon- und Rektumkarzimon. Dtsch Ärztebl 96:698–700Google Scholar