4.4 Article

Laparoscopic high anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) for early rectal cancer

Journal

TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 61-64

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-009-0460-z

Keywords

Laparoscopy; Surgery; Rectal carcinoma; NOSE

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer requires an abdominal incision to extract the resected specimen. We describe a technique for laparoscopic resection of an early-stage upper rectal cancer in a 51-year-old man followed by transanal specimen delivery, hence avoiding the need for making any additional abdominal incisions for retrieval of the specimen. Pneumoperitoneum was created, followed by medial-tolateral mobilization of the sigmoid colon, and take down of the splenic flexure and division of the inferior mesenteric vessels laparoscopically. The upper rectum distal to the tumour and proximal colon was transected with a laparoscopic stapler. The specimen was retrieved transanally via an opening in the rectal stump. The proximal colon was then delivered transanally and the anvil of the circular stapler inserted before returning it to the pelvic cavity. The rectal stump was transected again just below the opening to close off the stump, and the colorectal anastomosis was then completed intracorporeally. The patient, a 51-year-old male (BMI 18.6 kg/m(2)) with a 2.5-cm, early-stage posterior rectal cancer 12 cm from the anal verge, underwent the above-described procedure. Postoperative recovery was uneventful. He resumed normal daily activities 1 week after surgery. Histology confirmed a T1N0 upper rectal cancer. In the effort to minimize surgical trauma and postoperative pain, natural orifice specimen extraction techniques have been attempted. This procedure may be applicable to benign tumours and early colorectal cancer, and serves as an intermediate step between laparoscopic and natural orifice surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available