Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 541–545 | Cite as

Robotic transanal surgery (RTAS) with utilization of a next-generation single-port system: a cadaveric feasibility study

  • J. Marks
  • S. Ng
  • T. Mak
Original Article



Transanal surgery remains both an innovative approach to rectal pathology and a demonstrated technical challenge. Improved technology using a single-port system robotic platform (SPS) offers a promising option for this surgery.


SPS robotic system was utilized to perform submucosal, full-thickness and cylindrical excision on four cadavers. Operative performance and surgeon fatigue were measured.


On all types of resections, the SPS system performed well. There were no piecemeal or fragmented resections. Closure was judged to be good to excellent in all cases. Surgeon assessment of setup and performance of the SPS was excellent in all cases.


SPS robotic transanal surgery represents an exciting new option for transanal surgery.


Robotic transanal surgery (RTAS) Single port surgery (SPS) Transanal endoscopic surgery (TEM) Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) Robotic TEM (RTEM) 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent not required.


  1. 1.
    Buess G, Theiss R, Günther M, Hutterer F, Pichlmaier H (1985) Endoscopic surgery in the rectum. Endoscopy 17:31–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albert MR, Atallah SB, deBeche-Adams TC, Izfar S, Larach SW (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 56:301–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atallah S, Parra-Davila E, DeBeche-Adams T, Albert M, Larach S (2012) Excision of a rectal neoplasm using robotic transanal surgery (RTS): a description of the technique. Tech Coloproctol 16:389–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marks JH, Frenkel JL, Greenleaf CE, D’Andrea AP (2014) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery with entrance into the peritoneal cavity: is it safe? Dis Colon Rectum 57:1176–1182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moore JS, Cataldo PA, Osler T, Hyman NH (2008) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery is more effective than traditional transanal excision for resection of rectal masses. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1026–1030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee SH, Jeon SW, Jung MK, Kim SK, Choi GS (2009) A comparison of transanal excision and endoscopic resection for early rectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Endosc 1(1):56–60CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marks JH, Montenegro GA, Salem JF, Shields MV, Marks GJ (2016) Transanal TATA/TME: a case-matched study of taTME versus laparoscopic TME surgery for rectal cancer. Tech Coloprctol 20(7):467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marks JH, Lopez-Acevedo N, Krishnan B, Johnson MN, Montenegro GA, Marks GJ (2016) True NOTES TME resection with splenic flexure release, high ligation of IMA, and side-to-end hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 30(10):4626–4631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buess GF, Raestrup H (2001) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 10:709–731PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Colorectal SurgeryLankenau HospitalWynnewoodUSA
  2. 2.Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong KongPrince of Wales HospitalShatinChina
  3. 3.Lankenau Medical CenterWynnewoodUSA

Personalised recommendations