Predicting the level of difficulty of the double-stapling technique in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

Abstract

Background

The transection of rectum and fashioning of anastomosis is a crucial step in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) and the double-stapling technique (DST) is often employed. This study aimed to evaluate the factors that were associated with difficult DST.

Method

Cases of laparoscopic TME were retrospectively reviewed. The clinico-anatomical parameters were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. In addition, pelvic dimensions were taken by reviewing the magnetic resonance imaging scan. The number of stapler cartridges used for intracorporeal transection of rectum was used as a surrogate for the level of difficulty of DST and its relationship with various parameters were evaluated.

Results

There were a total of 121 consecutive cases analyzed. The mean number of stapler cartridges used was 2.1 ± 0.7. Pelvic inlet (p = 0.002) and tumor height (p = 0.015) were predictors of the number of cartridges used, R2 = 0.366. A model was developed to predict the likelihood of transecting the rectum with two or less stapler cartridges, which included the following parameters: gender, pelvic inlet, interspinous distance, intertuberous distance, and tumor height. The predicted probability also correlated with overall operation time (p = 0.009) and anastomotic leakage (p = 0.023).

Conclusion

The difficulty of DST was associated with patient’s clinico-anatomical factors. Surgeons can consider other feasible alternatives, like transanal anastomosis, when a technically challenging DST is anticipated.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69:613–616

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F, Quirke P, Guillou P, Jayne DG, Brown JM (2013) Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 100:75–82

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, Nam BH, Choi HS, Kim DW, Lim SB, Lee TG, Kim DY, Kim JS, Chang HJ, Lee HS, Kim SY, Jung KH, Hong YS, Kim JH, Sohn DK, Kim DH, Oh JH (2010) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 11:637–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Laurent C, Leblanc F, Wutrich P, Scheffler M, Rullier E (2009) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: long-term oncologic results. Ann Surg 250:54–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MH, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Tekkis 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 242:83–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Knight CD, Griffen FD (1980) An improved technique for low anterior resection of the rectum using the EEA stapler. Surgery 88:710–714

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kuroyanagi H, Oya M, Ueno M, Fujimoto Y, Yamaguchi T, Muto T (2008) Standardized technique of laparoscopic intracorporeal rectal transection and anastomosis for low anterior resection. Surg Endosc 22:557–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ito M, Sugito M, Kobayashi A, Nishizawa Y, Tsunoda Y, Saito N (2008) Relationship between multiple numbers of stapler firings during rectal division and anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:703–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Park JS, Choi GS, Kim SH, Kim HR, Kim NK, Lee KY, Kang SB, Kim JY, Lee KY, Kim BC, Bae BN, Son GM, Lee SI, Kang H (2013) Multicenter analysis of risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal cancer excision: the Korean laparoscopic colorectal surgery study group. Ann Surg 257:665–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kim JS, Cho SY, Min BS, Kim NK (2009) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis with a double stapling technique. J Am Coll Surg 209:694–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kawada K, Hasegawa S, Hida K, Hirai K, Okoshi K, Nomura A, Kawamura J, Nagayama S, Sakai Y (2014) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with DST anastomosis. Surg Endosc 28:2988–2995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Braunschmid T, Hartig N, Baumann L, Dauser B, Herbst F (2017) Influence of multiple stapler firings used for rectal division on colorectal anastomotic leak rate. Surg Endosc 31:5318–5326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Nesbakken A, Nygaard K, Lunde OC (2001) Outcome and late functional results after anastomotic leakage following mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 88:400–404

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Mirnezami A, Mirnezami R, Chandrakumaran K, Sasapu K, Sagar P, Finan P (2011) Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 253:890–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Yamamoto S, Watanabe M, Hasegawa H, Kitajima M (2002) Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoidal and rectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1648–1654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Morino M, Parini U, Giraudo G, Salval M, Brachet Contul R, Garrone C (2003) Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a consecutive series of 100 patients. Ann Surg 237:335–342

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kim SH, Park IJ, Joh YG, Hahn KY (2006) Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a prospective analysis of thirty-month follow-up outcomes in 312 patients. Surg Endosc 20:1197–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Scheidbach H, Schneider C, Konradt J, Barlehner E, Kohler L, Wittekind C, Kockerling F (2002) Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and anterior resection with curative intent for carcinoma of the rectum. Surg Endosc 16:7–13

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Snijders HS, Wouters MW, van Leersum NJ, Kolfschoten NE, Henneman D, de Vries AC, Tollenaar RA, Bonsing BA (2012) Meta-analysis of the risk for anastomotic leakage, the postoperative mortality caused by leakage in relation to the overall postoperative mortality. Eur J Surg Oncol 38:1013–1019

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ogiso S, Yamaguchi T, Hata H, Fukuda M, Ikai I, Yamato T, Sakai Y (2011) Evaluation of factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: “narrow pelvis” is not a contraindication. Surg Endosc 25:1907–1912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Wang C, Xiao Y, Qiu H, Yao J, Pan W (2014) Factors affecting operating time in laparoscopic anterior resection of rectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol 12:44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    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 146:483–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Killeen T, Banerjee S, Vijay V, Al-Dabbagh Z, Francis D, Warren S (2010) Magnetic resonance (MR) pelvimetry as a predictor of difficulty in laparoscopic operations for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 24:2974–2979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ferko A, Maly O, Orhalmi J, Dolejs J (2016) CT/MRI pelvimetry as a useful tool when selecting patients with rectal cancer for transanal total mesorectal excision. Surg Endosc 30:1164–1171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Salerno G, Daniels IR, Brown G, Norman AR, Moran BJ, Heald RJ (2007) Variations in pelvic dimensions do not predict the risk of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement in rectal cancer. World J Surg 31:1313–1320

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Fernandez Ananin S, Targarona EM, Martinez C, Pernas JC, Hernandez D, Gich I, Sancho FJ, Trias M (2014) Predicting the pathological features of the mesorectum before the laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 28:3458–3466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Baik SH, Kim NK, Lee KY, Sohn SK, Cho CH, Kim MJ, Kim H, Shinn RK (2008) Factors influencing pathologic results after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: analysis of consecutive 100 cases. Ann Surg Oncol 15:721–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Radovanovic Z, Petrovic T, Radovanovic D, Breberina M, Golubovic A, Lukic D (2014) Single versus double stapling anastomotic technique in rectal cancer surgery. Surg Today 44:1026–1031

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Moritz E, Achleitner D, Holbling N, Miller K, Speil T, Weber F (1991) Single vs. double stapling technique in colorectal surgery. A prospective randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 34:495–497

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kawasaki K, Fujino Y, Kanemitsu K, Goto T, Kamigaki T, Kuroda D, Kuroda Y (2007) Experimental evaluation of the mechanical strength of stapling techniques. Surg Endosc 21:1796–1799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Brisinda G, Vanella S, Cadeddu F, Civello IM, Brandara F, Nigro C, Mazzeo P, Marniga G, Maria G (2009) End-to-end versus end-to-side stapled anastomoses after anterior resection for rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 99:75–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Roumen RM, Rahusen FT, Wijnen MH, van Uchelen FAC (2000) “Dog ear” formation after double-stapled low anterior resection as a risk factor for anastomotic disruption. Dis Colon Rectum 43:522–525

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, Wynn G, Austin R, Warusavitarne J, Moran B, Hanna GB, Mortensen NJ, Tekkis PP (2018) Incidence and risk factors for anastomotic failure in 1594 patients treated by transanal total mesorectal excision: results from the international TaTME registry. Ann Surg 269:700

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors report no external funding for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chi Chung Foo.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Chi Chung Foo, Hing Tsun Hung, Yuen Chi Ho, Wendy Wai Man Lam, and Professor Wai Lun Law have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Foo, C.C., Hung, H.T., Ho, Y.C. et al. Predicting the level of difficulty of the double-stapling technique in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. Surg Endosc 34, 3382–3387 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07112-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Total mesorectal excision
  • Double-stapling technique
  • MRI pelvimetry