Taeniectomy pouch as neorectum after low rectal resection

Background and purpose The functional outcomes of incontinence and high stool frequency resulting from restorative surgery are often criticised. The aim of this study was to assess the taeniectomy pouch in comparison with other pouches described in the literature. Material and methods This was a prospective cohort study. All patients who were candidate for low rectal resection presenting to the colorectal unit at Cairo University hospitals during the period February 2013 to February 2015 were included in the study (90 patients). Safety and feasibility of the new technique were assessed, including operative time, leakage, postoperative urgency, incontinence, number of daily motions and difficulty in evacuation. These parameters were assessed clinically, by means of defecography and anorectal manometry. Results The mean age of patients was 49.6 years. Percentages of postoperative mortality and leakage were 2.2% and 3.4%, respectively. Mean operative time was 117 minutes. Mean numbers of daily motions were 3.04 and 1.52 at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Mean Wexner score for continence at 3 and 12 months were 3.21 and 1.32, respectively. Mean resting pressure was 51.63 mmHg, squeeze pressure was 130.42 mmHg and mean threshold volume was 118.68 ml. Conclusions Taeniectomy is a novel technique for pouch formation after low rectal resection, which can be used as an alternative to other pouches, especially the widely used transverse coloplasty.

Laparoscopic versus Robotic-assisted Rectal Surgery: A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes

Rectal surgery continues to be an area of advancement for minimally invasive techniques. However, there is controversy regarding whether a robotic approach imparts any advantages over established laparoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection operations. A single-institution retrospective review was performed identifying 83 consecutive patients undergoing low rectal resection requiring proximal diversion between 2009 and 2013. The cohort was comprised of 38 laparoscopic and 45 robotic cases. Data were analyzed for postoperative outcomes as well as 30-day morbidity and mortality. Male gender frequency, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class were higher in the robotic group (71%, 28.6 kg/m2, and 2.6, respectively) compared with the laparoscopic group (42%, 23.7 kg/m2, and 2.2, respectively; P < 0.01). Length of stay was significantly longer for patients undergoing laparoscopic (7.5 days) compared with robotic procedures (5.7 days, P < 0.01). This difference was even greater when comparing patients who underwent a hybrid laparoscopic-assisted open total mesorectal excision (TME) with robotic TME (8.2 vs 5.7 days, respectively, P < 0.01). Conversion rate was 7.9 per cent for the laparoscopic group and zero per cent for the robotic ( P = 0.09). There were no mortalities in either group. A pure laparoscopic or robotic rectal surgery may be associated with a shorter hospital stay compared with a laparoscopic-assisted approach.