Advertisement

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 1218–1224 | Cite as

Total Mesorectal Excision—Does the Choice of Dissection Technique have an Impact on Pelvic Autonomic Nerve Preservation?

  • Daniel W. Kauff
  • Oliver Kempski
  • Sabine Huppert
  • Klaus P. Koch
  • Klaus P. Hoffmann
  • Hauke Lang
  • Werner KneistEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The aim of this experimental study was to assess the quality of pelvic autonomic nerve preservation of different dissection techniques.

Material and Methods

Twelve pigs underwent low anterior rectal resection (LARR) with scissors, ultracision, monopolar diathermy, and waterjet, each in three animals. Assessment of pelvic autonomic nerve preservation was carried out by stimulation of the pelvic splanchnic nerves under electromyography of the internal anal sphincter (IAS). Neurostimulation was performed bilaterally after posterior dissection, after complete mesorectal dissection, and after rectal resection.

Results

Stimulation resulted in significantly increased amplitudes of the time-based electromyographic signal of the IAS, confirming nerve preservation. The stimulation results after complete mesorectal dissection showed comparable median amplitude increases for dissection with scissors (10.34 μV (interquartile range [IQR], 5.58; 14.74)) and ultracision (9.79 μV (IQR, 7.63; 11.6)). Lower amplitude increases were observed for monopolar diathermy (4.47 μV (IQR, 2.52; 10.46)) and waterjet (0.61 μV (IQR, 0.07; 2.11)) (p = 0.038). All animals undergoing dissection with scissors, ultracision, and monopolar diathermy had bilateral positive results. Of three animals undergoing LARR with waterjet, one had bilateral positive results. Two had unilateral negative results, indicating incomplete nerve preservation.

Conclusion

Scissors, ultracision, and monopolar diathermy might have comparable nerve-sparing potentials and differed from waterjet.

Keywords

Dissection techniques TME Pelvic autonomic nerve preservation Rectal cancer Internal anal sphincter 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Dr. D. Keiner, Institute for Neurosurgical Pathophysiology, University of Medicine of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz,Germany, who provided assistance and support with the waterjet system. We also thank the IKONA Consortium, Germany for the technical and material support. The project was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, grant number 01EZ0722).

References

  1. 1.
    Heald RJ, Ryall RD. Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1986; 1: 1479–1482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Havenga K, Enker WE, McDermott K, Cohen AM, Minsky BD,Guillem J. Male and female sexual and urinary function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for carcinoma of the rectum. J Am Coll Surg 1996; 182: 495–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lange MM, Maas CP, Marijnen CAM, et al. cooperative clinical investigators of the Dutch Total Mesorectal Excision trial. Urinary dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment is mainly caused by surgery. Br J Surg 2008; 95: 1020–1028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kneist W, Kauff DW. Intraoperative Neuromonitoring. In: Kramme R, Hoffmann KP, Pozos RS, ed. Handbook of medical technology. Springer Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York: 2011, pp 1043–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kneist W, Kauff DW, Rahimi Nedjat RK, et al. Intraoperative pelvic nerve stimulation performed under continuous electromyography of the internal anal sphincter. Int J Colorectal Dis 2010; 25: 1325–1331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kneist W, Kauff DW, Koch KP, et al. Selective pelvic autonomic nerve stimulation with simultaneous intraoperative monitoring of internal anal sphincter and bladder innervation. Eur Surg Res 2011; 46: 133–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kauff DW, Koch KP, Somerlik KH, et al. Online signal processing of internal anal sphincter activity during pelvic autonomic nerve stimulation: A new method to improve the reliability of intraoperative neuromonitoring signals. Colorectal Dis 2010;13: 1422–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kneist W, Kauff DW, Gockel I, et al. Total mesorectal excision with intraoperative assessment of internal anal sphincter innervation provides new insights into neurogenic incontinence. J Am Coll Surg 2012; 214: 306–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Köckerling F, Yildirim C, Rose J, Scheidbach H, Geers P. Total mesorectal excision with the water-jet-dissection. Technique and results. Tech Coloproctol 2004; 8: 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feil W. Technology and clinical application of ultrasonic dissection. Min Invas Ther Allied Technol 2002; 11: 215–223.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amaral JF. Depth of thermal injury: ultrasonically activated scalpel vs electrosurgery. Surg Endosc 1995; 9: 226–231.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carlander J, Johansson K, Lindström S, Velin AK, Jiang CH, Nordborg C. Comparison of experimental nerve injury caused by ultrasonically activated scalpel and electrosurgery. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 772–777.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schurr MO, Wehrmann M, Kunert W, et al. Histologic effects of different technologies for dissection in endoscopic surgery: ND:YAG laser; high frequency and water-jet. End Surg Allied Technol 1994; 2: 195–201.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geers P, Moesta KT, Yildirim C, Thon WF, Köckerling F. Urodynamic outcome of waterjet-assisted total mesorectal excision. Br J Surg 2007; 94: 1543–1547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Touloumtzidis A, Kühn P, Goretzki PE, Lammers BJ. Water-jet dissection in rectal cancer surgery: surgical and oncological outcomes. Surg Technol Int 2010; 20: 115–123.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clausen N, Wolloscheck T, Konerding MA. How to optimize autonomic nerve preservation in total mesorectal excision: clinical topography and morphology of pelvic nerves and fasciae. World J Surg 2008; 32: 1768–1775.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andratschke M, Lörken J, Eggers R, Magritz R, Siegert R, Wollenberg B. Histomorphologic findings in the facial nerve after waterjet dissection of the parotid gland. Animal studies in dogs. HNO 2011; 59: 1055–1061.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tschan CA, Keiner D, Müller HD, Schwabe K, Gaab MR, Krauss JK, Sommer C, Oertel J. Waterjet dissection of peripheral nerves: an experimental study of the sciatic nerve of rats. Neurosurgery 2010; 67: 368–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wanner M, Jakob S, Schwarzl F, Honigmann K, Oberholzer M, Pierer G. Water jet dissection in fatty tissue. Swiss Surg 2001; 7: 173–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lubowski DZ, Nicholls RJ, Swash M, Jordan MJ. Neural control of internal anal sphincter function. Br J Surg 1987; 74: 668–670.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mundy AR. An anatomical explanation for bladder dysfunction following rectal and uterine surgery. Br J Urol 1982; 54: 501–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel W. Kauff
    • 1
  • Oliver Kempski
    • 2
  • Sabine Huppert
    • 1
  • Klaus P. Koch
    • 3
  • Klaus P. Hoffmann
    • 4
  • Hauke Lang
    • 1
  • Werner Kneist
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of General and Abdominal SurgeryUniversity Medicine of the Johannes Gutenberg-University MainzMainzGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Neurosurgical PathophysiologyUniversity Medicine of the Johannes Gutenberg-University MainzMainzGermany
  3. 3.Department of EngineeringUniversity of Applied SciencesTrierGermany
  4. 4.Fraunhofer Institute for Biomedical Engineering and University of Applied SciencesSt. IngbertGermany

Personalised recommendations