Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The outcomes of two robotic platforms performing transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal neoplasia: a case series of 21 patients

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

Abstract

Colorectal cancer remains the third most common cancer effecting adults. Surgical guidelines recommend transanal excision of early rectal neoplasia up to 8 cm from the anal verge. A retrospective review of two novel approaches for transanal robotic local excision with R0 resections of rectal cancers which was, on average, higher than 8 cm. Twenty-one cases of robotic assisted transanal surgery for early stage disease (T0–T1, N0) were reviewed. The first 10 cases performed with the da Vinci® Si robotic platform between 2013 and 2016, and the first 11 cases performed using the Flex® Medrobotics platform between August 2017 and August 2018. The average distance from the anal verge was 11.1 cm and 9.5 cm for the da Vinci® Si and Flex® Colorectal Drive, respectively. The average operative time was 167.6 min for the da Vinci® Si and 110.1 min for the Flex® Colorectal Drive; the average EBL was 37.5 cc and 9.1 cc for the da Vinci® Si and Flex® Colorectal Drive. In the da Vinci® series, four cases required intraoperative conversion. In the Flex® series, one case was aborted due to unfavorable robotic positioning. All margins were histologically negative when surgically complete with no recurrences to date. Transanal robotic surgery may provide a method to address rectal lesions farther from the anal verge than previously described. The Flex® Colorectal Drive platform may provide superior ability to navigate the nonlinear anatomy of the rectum and distal sigmoid colon.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Key Statistics for Colorectal Cancer. American Cancer Society (2018) https://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonrectal-cancer/about/key-statistics.html

  2. Monson JR, Weiser MR, Buie WD, Chang GJ, Rafferty JF (2013) Standards Practice Task Force of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 56(5):535–550 (Revised)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nastro P, Beral D, Hartley J, Monson JR (2005) Local excision of rectal cancer: review of literature. Dig Surg 22(1–2):6–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rai V, Mishra N (2016) Transanal approach to rectal polyps and cancer. Clin Colon and Rectal Surg 29(1):65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McLemore EC, Weston LA, Coker AM et al (2014) Transanal minimally invasive surgery for benign and malignant rectal neoplasia. Am J Surg 208(3):372–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.01.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buess G, Theiss R, Gunther M, Hutterer F, Pichlmaier H (1985) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Leber Magen Darm 15:271–279

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Martin-Perez B, Andrade-Ribeiro GD, Hunter L, Atallah S (2014) A systematic review of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) from 2010 to 2013. Tech Coloproctol 18(9):775–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1148-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(7):1026–1030 (Discussion 1030–1. Epub 2008 May 15)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clancy C, Burke JP, Albert MR, O’Connell PR, Winter DC (2015) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus standard transanal excision for the removal of rectal neoplasms: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 58(2):254–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Heidary B, Phang TP, Raval MJ, Brown CJ (2014) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a review. Can J Surg 57(2):127–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Atallah S, Albert M, Larach S (2010) Transanal minimally invasive surgery: a giant leap forward. Surg Endosc 24(9):2200–2205 (Epub 2010 Feb 21)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hompes R, Rauh SM, Hagen ME, Mortensen NJ (2012) Preclinical cadaveric study of transanal endoscopic da Vinci® surgery. Br J Surg 99(8):1144–1148. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8794

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Atallah SB, Albert MR, Debeche-Adams TH, Larach SW (2011) Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery in a cadaveric model. Tech Coloproctol 15(4):461–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-011-0762-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bardakcioglu O (2013) Robotic transanal access surgery. Surg Endosc 27(4):1407–1409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2581-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Atallah S, Martin-Perez B, Parra-Davila E et al (2015) Robotic transanal surgery for local excision of rectal neoplasia, transanal total mesorectal excision, and repair of complex fistulae: clinical experience with the first 18 cases at a single institution. Tech Coloproctol 19(7):401–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-1283-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Buchs NC, Pugin F, Volonte F, Hagen ME, Morel P, Ris F (2013) Robotic Transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Dis Colon Rectum 56(10):1194–1198. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182a2ac84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Benson A III, Bekaii-Saab T, Chan E et al (2012) Clinical Practice guidelines in oncology. JNCCN 10(12):1528–1564

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Morino M, Risio M, Bach S et al (2015) Early rectal cancer : the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) clinical consensus conference. Surg Endosc 24:755–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4067-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Anthony LB, Strosberg JR, Klimstra DS et al (2010) The NANETS consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Pancreas 39(6):767–774. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0b013e3181ec1261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu S, Suzuki T, Murray BW, Parry L, Johnson CS, Horgan S, Ramamoorthy S, Eisenstein S (2018) Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) with the newest robotic surgical platform: a multi-institutional North American experience. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6329-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA et al (2017) Colorectal cancer statistics. CA 67(3):177–193. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Saclarides TJ, Smith L, Ko S-T, Orkin B, Buess G (1992) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Dis Colon Rectum 35(12):1183–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02251975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Morino M, Allaix ME, Famiglietti F, Caldart M, Arezzo A (2013) Does peritoneal peforation affect short- and long-term outcomes after transanal endoscopic microsurgery? Surg Endosc 27(1):181–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2418-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baatrup G, Borschitz T, Cunningham C, Qvist N (2009) Perforation into the peritoneal cavity during transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer is not associated with major complications or oncological compromise. Surg Endosc 23(12):2680–2683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0281-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(10):1176–1182. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. García-Flórez LJ, Otero-Díez JL (2015) Local excision by transanal endoscopic surgery. World J Gastroenterol 21(31):9286–9296. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i31.9286

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Plummer JM, Leake P-A, Albert MR (2017) Recent advances in the management of rectal cancer: no surgery, minimal surgery or minimally invasive surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 9(6):139. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v9.i6.139

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ramkumar J, Karimuddin AA, Phang PT, Raval MJ, Brown CJ (2018) Peritoneal perforation during transanal endoscopic microsurgery is not associated with significant short-term complications. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6351-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Baatrup G, Borschitz T, Cunningham C, Qvist N (2009) Perforation into the peritoneal cavity during transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer is no associated with major complications or oncologic compromise. Surg Endosc 23:2680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Molina G, Bordeianou L, Shellito P, Sylla P (2016) Transanal endoscopic resection with peritoneal entry: a word of caution. Surg Endosc 30(5):1816–1825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4452-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was performed without grant support or support from other financial relationships.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, C/O George Washington University Hospital, 22nd and I Street, NW, 6th Flour Suite 6B, Washington, DC, 20037, USA

    Jessie O. Paull & Salvatore A. Parascandola

  2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA

    Ada Graham, Suzanne Arnott, Matthew Skancke & Vincent Obias

  3. Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

    Salini Hota

  4. George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA

    Natalie Pudalov

Authors
  1. Jessie O. Paull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ada Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Salvatore A. Parascandola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Salini Hota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Natalie Pudalov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Suzanne Arnott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Matthew Skancke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vincent Obias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salvatore A. Parascandola.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author V. Obias is a consultant for Intuitive Surgical and Medrobotics. Authors J. Paull, S. Parascandola, A. Graham, S. Hota, N. Pudalov, S. Arnott, and M Skancke declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee [The George Washington University Committee on Human Research, Institutional Review Board (IRB), FWA00005945] and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and animal rights statement

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

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Podium presentation

Chesapeake Colorectal Society, Arlington VA, April 13th, 2019.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paull, J.O., Graham, A., Parascandola, S.A. et al. The outcomes of two robotic platforms performing transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal neoplasia: a case series of 21 patients. J Robotic Surg 14, 573–578 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01021-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01021-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation