Robotic surgery is increasingly used in the field of rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection (uLAR) and coloanal anastomosis (CAA). Between January 2007 and December 2010, a retrospective chart review was performed for all patients with low rectal cancer who underwent curative uLAR and CAA with or without intersphincteric resection using either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach. The study excluded patients with tumors invading the levator ani or external sphincter, patients with T4 cancers invading the prostate or vagina, and patients for whom an open approach was used. Patients' short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated. This study enrolled 84 consecutive patients (47 in the robotic group and 37 in the laparoscopic group). The patient characteristics and operative data did not differ significantly between the groups except for the rate of conversion to open surgery (robot, 2.1 % vs laparoscopy, 16.2 %; p = 0.02). The postoperative outcomes also were similar in the two groups, but the hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (robot, 9 days vs laparoscopy, 11 days; p = 0.011). No postoperative mortality occurred. The median follow-up period was 31.5 months. No difference was shown in local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, or disease-free survival between the two groups. Robotic uLAR and CAA with or without ISR is a safe and feasible surgical approach with a lower conversion rate, a shorter hospital stay, and similar oncologic outcomes compared with a laparoscopic approach. Further prospective and case-control cohort studies with longer follow-up periods are required.

BackgroundRobotically assisted colon resection is a new type of surgery for colon cancer. However, the evidence is inadequate for the general adaptation of robotic colon surgery. This study aimed to show the oncologic and perioperative clinical results of robotically assisted anterior resection (R-AR) compared with those of laparoscopically assisted anterior resection (L-AR) for sigmoid colon cancer.MethodsA total of 180 patients (sigmoid colon cancer stages 1–3) were assigned to receive either R-AR (n = 34) or L-AR (n = 146) between April 2006 and September 2008. Patient characteristics, perioperative clinical results, and long-term oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mean operation time was 217.6 ± 70.7 min for L-AR versus 252.5 ± 94.9 min for R-AR (p = 0.016). The total postoperative complication rate was 10.3 % for R-AR versus 5.9 % for L-AR (p = 0.281). The 3-year overall survival rate for all the patients was 93.4 % for L-AR versus 92.1 % for R-AR (p = 0.723). The 3-year overall survival rate was 100 % for both L-AR and R-AR in stage 1, 95.5 % for L-AR versus 100 % for R-AR (p = 0.386) in stage 2, and 88.4 % for L-AR versus 72.9 % (p = 0.881) for R-AR in stage 3.ConclusionIn this study, R-AR showed safety and feasibility in terms of perioperative clinical and long-term oncologic outcomes. However, the advanced technologies of R-AR did not translate into better long-term oncologic outcomes compared with L-AR.

Aim. Robotic colorectal surgery may be a way to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. It is an emerging field; so, we aim in this paper to provide a comprehensive and data analysis of the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colorectal surgery. Method. A comprehensive systematic search of electronic databases was completed for the period from 2000 to 2011. Studies reporting outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery were identified and analyzed. Results. 41 studies (21 case series, 2 case controls, 13 comparative studies 1 prospective comparative, 1 randomized trial, 3 retrospective analyses) were reviewed. A total of 1681 patients are included in this paper; all of them use Da Vinci except 2 who use Zeus. Short-term outcome has been evaluated with 0 mortality and191 total major and minor complications. Pathological results were not analyzed in all studies and only 20 out of 41 provide data about the pathological results. Conclusion. Robotic surgery is safe and feasible option in colorectal surgery and a promising field; however, further prospective randomized studies are required to better define its role.

Anal fistula management has long been a challenge for surgeons. Presently, no technique exists that is ideal for treating all types of anal fistula, whether simple or complex. A higher incidence of poor sphincter function and recurrence after surgery has encouraged the development of a new sphincter-sparing procedure, ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT), first described by Van der Hagen et al. in 2006. We assessed the safety, feasibility, success rate, and continence of LIFT as a sphincter-saving procedure. A literature search of articles in electronic databases published from January 2006 to August 2012 was performed. Analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews recommendations. All LIFT-related articles published in the English language were included. We excluded case reports, abstracts, letters, non-English language articles, and comments. The procedure was described in detail as reported by Rojanasakul. Thirteen original studies, including 435 patients, were reviewed. The most common fistula procedure type was transsphincteric (92.64 %). The overall median operative time was 39 (±20.16) min. Eight authors performed LIFT as a same-day surgery, whereas the others admitted patients to the hospital, with an overall median stay of 1.25 days (range 1-5 days). Postoperative complications occurred in 1.88 % of patients. All patients remained continent postoperatively. The overall mean length of follow-up was 33.92 (±17.0) weeks. The overall mean healing rate was 81.37 (±16.35) % with an overall mean healing period of 8.15 (±5.96) weeks. Fistula recurrence occurred in 7.58 % of patients. LIFT represents a new, easy-to-learn, and inexpensive sphincter-sparing procedure that provides reasonable results. LIFT is safe and feasible, with favorable short- and long-term outcomes. However, additional prospective randomized studies are required to confirm these findings.

PurposeOur aim to assess clinical significance of the relation between inferior mesenteric vein ligation and collateral blood supply (meandering mesenteric artery) to the splenic flexure with elaboration more in anatomical landmarks and technical tips.Materials and MethodsWe review the literature regarding the significance of the collateral vessels around inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) root and provide our prospective operative findings, anatomical landmarks and technical tips. We analyzed the incidence and pattern of anatomic variation of collateral vessels around the IMV.ResultsA total of 30 consecutive patients have been prospectively observed in a period between June 25-2012 and September 7-2012. Nineteen males and eleven females with mean age of 63 years. Major colorectal procedures were included. There were three anatomical types proposed, based on the relation between IMV and the collateral vessel. Type A and B in which either the collateral vessel crosses or runs close to the IMV with incidence of 43.3% and 13.3%, respectively, whereas type C is present in 43.3%. There was no definitive relation between the artery and vein. No intra or postoperative ischemic events were reported.ConclusionDuring IMV ligation, inadvertent ligation of Arc of Riolan or meandering mesenteric artery around the IMV root "in type A&B" might result in compromised blood supply to the left colon, congestion, ischemia and different level of colitis or anastomotic dehiscence. Therefore, careful dissection and skeletonization at the IMV root "before ligation if necessary" is mandatory to preserve the collateral vessel for the watershed area and to avoid further injury.

Based on a review of the literature, this paper provides an update on surgical treatment of middle and low rectal cancer and discusses issues of debate surrounding that treatment. The main goal of the surgical treatment of rectal cancer is radical resection of the tumor and surrounding lymphatic tissue. Local excision of early rectal cancer can be another treatment option, in which the patient can avoid possible complications related to radical surgery. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) has been recommended for patients with cT3-4N0 or any T N+ rectal cancer because CRT shows better local control and less toxicity than adjuvant CRT. However, recent clinical trials showed promising results for local excision after neoadjuvant CRT in selected patients with low rectal cancer. In addition, the "wait and see" concept is another modality that has been reported for the management of tumors that show complete clinical remission after neoadjuvant CRT. Although radical surgery for middle and low rectal cancer is the cornerstone therapy, an ultralow anterior resection with or without intersphincteric resection (ISR) has become an alternative standard surgical method for selected patients. Many studies have reported on the oncological safety of the ISR, but few of them have addressed the issue the functional outcome. Furthermore, an abdominoperineal resection (APR) has problems with high rates of tumor perforations and positive circumferential resection margins, and those factors have contributed to its having a high rate of local recurrence and a poor survival rate for rectal cancer compared with sphincter-saving procedures. Recently, great efforts have been made to reduce these problems, and the total levator excision or the extended APR concept has emerged. Surgical management for low rectal cancer should aim to radically excise the tumor and to preserve as much of the sphincter function as possible by using multidisciplinary approaches. However, further prospective clinical trials are needed for tailored treatment of rectal cancer patients.

BackgroundInfertility due to pelvic radiation for advanced rectal cancer treatment is a major concern particularly in young patients. Pre-radiation laparoscopic ovarian transposition may offer preservation of ovarian function during the treatment however its use is limited.AimThe study investigates the safety, feasibility and effectiveness of pre-radiation laparoscopic ovarian transposition and its effect on ovarian function in the treatment o locally advanced rectal cancer.MethodsCharts review of all young female patients diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer, underwent laparoscopic ovarian transposition, then received preoperative radiotherapy at king Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre between 2003–2007.ResultsDuring the period studied three single patients age between 21–27 years underwent pre-radiation laparoscopic ovarian transposition for advanced rectal cancer. All required pretreatment laparoscopic diversion stoma due to rectal stricture secondary to tumor that was performed at the same time. One patient died of metastatic disease during treatment. The ovarian hormonal levels (FSH and LH) were normal in two patients. One has had normal menstrual period and other had amenorrhoea after 4 months follow-up however her ovarian hormonal level were within normal limits.ConclusionsLaparoscopic ovarian transposition before pelvic radiation in advanced rectal cancer treatment is an effective and feasible way of preservation of ovarian function in young patients at risk of radiotherapy induced ovarian failure. However, this procedure is still under used and it is advisable to discuss and propose it to suitable patients.

Rectal cancer classification is important to determine the preoperative chemoradiation therapy and to select appropriate surgical technique. We reviewed the Western and Japanese rectal cancer classification and we propose our new classification based of Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We determine the relation of the tumor to fixed parameters in MRI, which are peritoneal reflection and levator ani muscle. Then, we classify the rectal cancer into four levels based on tumor distal margin and invasion to MRI parameters. We applied all three classifications to 60 retrospectively collected patients of different rectal cancer distance and we compared our classifications to the others. Based on each level we standardize our surgical approach. For stages I-III, We found that level I where tumor distal margin is located above the peritoneal reflection and all of them were received low anterior resection (LAR) without chemoradiation. Level II where tumor distal margin is located from the peritoneal reflection and above the levator ani insertion on the rectum. 90% of them were received LAR ± chemoradiation. Level III where tumor distal margin is located at the level of levator ani insertion or invading any part of the levator ani. 60% of them had ULAR + coloanal anastomosis ± chemoradiation. Level IV where the tumor distal margin is located below the levator ani insertion; 77% were received APR ± chemoradiation. The overall kappa for all levels between surgeons and radiologist was 0.93 (95%CI: 0.87-0.99), which is indicating almost perfect agreement. We concluded that the management of rectal tumors differed among each tumor level and our new MRI based classification might facilitate the prediction of surgical and chemoradiation management with better communication among a multidisciplinary team comparing to other classifications.