Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 2974–2979 | Cite as

Magnetic resonance (MR) pelvimetry as a predictor of difficulty in laparoscopic operations for rectal cancer

  • Tim KilleenEmail author
  • Saswata Banerjee
  • Vardhini Vijay
  • Zaid Al-Dabbagh
  • Daren Francis
  • Steve Warren

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is now well established. Recent studies have shown no difference in survival or oncologic outcomes when laparoscopic surgery is compared to open procedures [1, 2]. The laparoscopic approach does, however, present the surgeon with inherent challenges. Previous abdominal surgery, tumours closer to the anal verge, high body mass index (BMI), and preoperative radiotherapy have been shown to increase the difficulty of laparoscopic procedures in the pelvis [3, 4, 5, 6].

It is often assumed that laparoscopic resections for rectal cancer are also complicated by a deep, narrow pelvis in which access and vision are both restricted by pelvic anatomy. Although a majority of patients undergo preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance (MR) staging, radiological measurement of the bony pelvis––pelvimetry––has not been fully assessed as a predictor of difficult laparoscopic operations.

Male sex has been shown to correlate with surgeons’ perceived difficulty of...


Rectal Cancer Laparoscopic Resection Circumferential Resection Margin Sacral Promontory Pelvic Anatomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Drs. Killeen and Dabbagh, Mr. Banerjee, Mr. Warren, Mr. Francis, and Mrs. Vijay have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Laurent C, Leblanc F, Wütrich P, Scheffler M, Rullier E (2009) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: long-term oncologic results. Ann Surg 250(1):54–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson C, Uman G, Pigazzi A (2008) Oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:1135–1142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gu J, Bo X, Xiong C, Wu A, Zhang X, Li M, An Q, Fang J, Li J, Zhang X, Wang H, Gao F, You W (2006) Defining pelvic factors in sphincter-preservation of low rectal cancer with a three-dimensional digital model of pelvis. Dis Colon Rectum 49(10):1517–1526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akiyoshi T, Kuroyanagi H, Oya M, Konishi T, Fukuda M, Fujimoto Y, Ueno M, Miyata S, Yamaguchi T (2009) Factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with double stapling technique anastomosis for low rectal cancer. Surgery 146(3):483–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Targarona E, Balague C, Pernas J, Martinez C, Berindoague R, Gich I, Trias M (2008) Can we predict immediate outcome after laparoscopic rectal surgery? Multivariate analysis of clinical, anatomic, and pathologic features after 3-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvic anatomy. Ann Surg 247(4):642–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Veenhof A, Engel A, van der Peet D, Sietses M, de Lange-de Klerk E, Cuesta M (2008) Technical difficulty grade score for the laparoscopic approach of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 23(5):469–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyle K, Petty D, Chalmers A, Quirke P, Cairns A, Finan P, Sagar P, Burke D (2005) MRI assessment of the bony pelvis may help predict resectability of rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 7:232–240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Verschueren R, Mulder N, van Loon A, de Ruiter A, Szabo B (1997) The anatomical substrate for a difference in surgical approach to rectal cancer in male and female patients. Anticancer Res 17(1B):637–641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salerno G, Daniels I, Brown G, Heald R, Moran B (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetry in 186 patients with rectal cancer confirms an overlap in pelvic size between males and females. Colorectal Dis 8(9):772–776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salerno G, Daniels I, Brown G, Norman A, Moran B, Heald R (2007) Variations in pelvic dimensions do not predict the risk of circumferential resection margin (GRM) involvement in rectal cancer. World J Surg 31(6):1313–1320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hong S, Chang I, Han B, Yu J, Han J, Jeong S, Jeong H, Byun S, Lee H, Lee S (2007) Impact of variations in bony pelvic dimensions on performing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 69(5):907–911CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baik S, Kim N, Lee K, Sohn S, Cho C, Kim M, Kim H, Shinn R (2008) Factors influencing pathologic results after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: analysis of consecutive 100 cases. Ann Surg Oncol 15(3):721–728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tekis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections. Ann Surg 242:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Killeen
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Saswata Banerjee
    • 1
  • Vardhini Vijay
    • 1
  • Zaid Al-Dabbagh
    • 2
  • Daren Francis
    • 1
  • Steve Warren
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Laparoscopic Colorectal SurgeryChase Farm HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyChase Farm HospitalEnfieldUK
  3. 3.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations