An evaluation of trans-anal rectoscopic-assisted minimally invasive surgery (ARAMIS): a new platform for transanal surgery
-
Published:2020-05-24
Issue:9
Volume:35
Page:1681-1687
-
ISSN:0179-1958
-
Container-title:International Journal of Colorectal Disease
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Int J Colorectal Dis
Author:
Polese LinoORCID, Rizzato Roberto, Porzionato Andrea, Da Dalt Gianfranco, Bressan Alice, De Caro Raffaele, Merigliano Stefano
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
The study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new trans-anal rectoscopic-assisted minimally invasive surgery (ARAMIS) platform to treat rectal lesions.
Methods
ARAMIS was first compared with two transanal minimally invasive surgery platforms (SILS Port and GelPOINT Path) on human cadavers. Surgeons with different experience performed running sutures at different distances, at four quadrants, using the three platforms and gave a score to visibility, safety, and maneuverability. ARAMIS was then utilized on patients affected with rectal neoplasia who met the inclusion criteria. Patients and tumor characteristic and results were prospectively collected. The follow-up examinations included proctoscopy at 3, 6, and 12 months.
Results
According to surgeons’ scores, ARAMIS improves visibility and safety with respect to other platforms for distances beyond 10 cm. The procedure, which lasted an average of 59 min, was successfully carried out in 14 patients. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were reported. The mean tumor size was 3 cm; they were located a mean of 11 cm from the anal verge. Complete removal of the lesion was possible in 13/14 patients. There was one case of adenoma recurrence at follow-up.
Conclusion
Study results showed that ARAMIS, which is equipped with an adjustable rectoscope, can be considered a safe, effective platform for transanal surgery. The rectoscope protects the rectum during the procedure, a particularly important consideration when proximal rectal lesions are being treated. Further clinical studies are warranted to confirm these encouraging results.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference27 articles.
1. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, Cederquist L, Chen YJ, Ciombor KK, Cohen S, Cooper HS, Deming D, Engstrom PF, Grem JL, Grothey A, Hochster HS, Hoffe S, Hunt S, Kamel A, Kirilcuk N, Krishnamurthi S, Messersmith WA, Meyerhardt J, Mulcahy MF, Murphy JD, Nurkin S, Saltz L, Sharma S, Shibata D, Skibber JM, Sofocleous CT, Stoffel EM, Stotsky-Himelfarb E, Willett CG, Wuthrick E, Gregory KM, Gurski L, Freedman-Cass DA (2018) Rectal cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 16:874–901 2. Han J, Noh GT, Cheong C, Cho MS, Hur H, Min BS, Lee KY, Kim NK (2017) Transanal endoscopic operation versus conventional excision for rectal tumors: case-matched study with propensity score matching. World J Surg 41:2387–2394 3. Buess G, Theiss R, Hutterer F, Pichlmaier H, Pelz C, Holfeld T, Said S, Isselhard W (1983) Transanal endoscopic surgery of the rectum-testing a new method in animal experiments. Leber Magen Darm. 13:73–77 4. Middleton PF, Sutherland LM, Maddern GJ (2005) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 48:270–284 5. Cataldo PA (2006) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Surg Clin North Am 86:915–925
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|