{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032285837279380114, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01248385708136031, 'mean_word_length': 5.509803921568627, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 2, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Dynamic Article: Transanal Rectal Excision A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision can be difficult in a narrow pelvis. Transanal minimally invasive surgery allows the surgeon to mobilize the most distal part of the rectum by using a single port positioned in the anal canal. OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess the safety and feasibility of transanal rectal excision. DESIGN AND SETTING: This pilot study was conducted in a university hospital and tertiary colorectal referral center in Belgium. PATIENTS: Over a 12-month period, all consecutive patients with benign disease and ASA grade 3 patients with a rectal carcinoma who required either intersphincteric proctectomy or coloanal anastomosis were included. INTERVENTION: After intersphincteric dissection or sleeve mucosectomy, a single-access multichannel port was inserted into the anal canal. A transanal rectal excision was performed by using conventional laparoscopic instruments. The planes were developed as cephalad as possible, until the pouch of Douglas was opened. A laparoscopically assisted approach was used to gain bowel length and was used in patients who required proctectomy. In the case of a reconstruction, a handsewn coloanal anastomosis was made. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraoperative challenges, conversion rate, operating time, blood loss, morbidity, and length of stay were assessed. RESULTS: Fourteen patients underwent a transanal rectal excision for both benign (9) and malignant (5) disease. In 11 patients (79%), laparoscopically assisted transanal minimally invasive rectal excision was performed. The median (range) transanal operating time was 55 (35–95) minutes. Intraoperative difficulties hindering dissection occurred in 5 patients and were due to inadequate exposure, rectal perforation, or fibrosis secondary to radiotherapy for prostate cancer. There was minimal postoperative morbidity, with a median follow-up of 6.3 (1.5–13.8) months. All patients were discharged within 14 days postoperatively, and there were no readmissions. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by the small number of patients. CONCLUSION: Transanal rectal excision is safe and feasible and could be a promising technique to facilitate distal rectal mobilization (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A125).