Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul;37(7):5388-5396.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10008-x. Epub 2023 Apr 3.

Predictors for selective flexure mobilization during robotic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective cohort analysis

Affiliations

Predictors for selective flexure mobilization during robotic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective cohort analysis

Jeremy Meyer et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Jul.

Abstract

Introduction: Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) may be indicated during anterior resection to provide a tension-free anastomosis. However, to date, no score allows identifying patients who may benefit from SFM.

Methods: Patients who underwent robotic anterior resection for rectal cancer were identified from a prospective register. Demographic and cancer-related variables were extracted, and predictors of SFM were identified using regression models. Thereafter, 20 patients with SFM and 20 patients without SFM were randomly selected and their pre-operative CTscan were reviewed. The radiological index was defined as 1/(sigmoid length/pelvis depth). The optimal cut-off value for predicting SFM was identified using ROC curve analysis.

Results: Five hundred and twenty-four patients were included. SFM was performed in 121 patients (27.8%) and increased operative time by 21.8 min (95% CI: 11.3 to 32.4, p < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between patient with or without SFM. Realization of an anastomosis was the main predictor for SFM (OR: 42.4, 95% CI: 5.8 to 308.5, p < 0.001). In patients with colorectal anastomosis, both sigmoid length (15 ± 5.1 cm versus 24.2 ± 80.9 cm, p < 0.001) and radiological index (1 ± 0.3 versus 0.6 ± 0.2, p < 0.001) differed between patients who had SFM and patients who did not. ROC curve analysis of the radiological index indicated an optimal cut-off value of 0.8 (sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 90%).

Conclusion: SFM was performed in 27.8% of patients who underwent robotic anterior resection, and increased operative time by 21.8 min. For optimal surgical planning, patients requiring SFM can be identified based on pre-operative CT using the index 1/(sigmoid length/pelvis depth) with a cut-off value set at 0.8.

Keywords: Da Vinci; LAR; Low anterior resection; Robotics; TME; Total mesorectum excision.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Jeremy Meyer, Dr. George van der Schelling, Dr. Jan Wijsman, Prof. Frédéric Ris and Dr. Rogier Crolla have no conflict of interest to disclose related to the present manuscript.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Methods for measuring the sigmoid length. A Sagittal plane: The pelvis depth was estimated by measuring the distance from the middle of the top of the first sacral vertebra (S1) to the passage of the rectum through the pelvic floor. BD Coronal plane: The sigmoid length was measured, in several planes, from the crossing with the psoas muscle to the recto-sigmoid junction
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Inclusion flowchart. Patients were included if they underwent robotic anterior resection or abdomino-perineal excision for rectal cancer
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Analysis of radiological variables for predicting the necessity of SFM. Data are represented as boxplots: the horizontal line represents the median, the square indicates the SD, whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals. P-values were obtained using the Student’s t-test. A Length of the sigmoid, B Pelvis depth, C Radiological index, defined as: 1/(length of the sigmoid/depth of the pelvis), D Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve showing the ability of the radiological index for predicting SFM. SFM splenic flexure mobilization

References

    1. Crolla R, Coffey JC, Consten EJC. The mesentery in robot-assisted total mesorectal excision. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2022;35:298–305. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1743583. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dapri G, Bascombe NA, Cadiere GB, et al. The three approaches to the colonic splenic flexure mobilization - a video vignette. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19:948–949. doi: 10.1111/codi.13843. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Thum-umnuaysuk S, Boonyapibal A, Geng YY, et al. Lengthening of the colon for low rectal anastomosis in a cadaveric study: how much can we gain? Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17:377–381. doi: 10.1007/s10151-012-0930-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rondelli F, Pasculli A, De Rosa M, et al. Is routine splenic flexure mobilization always necessary in laparotomic or laparoscopic anterior rectal resection? A systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis. Updates Surg. 2021;73:1643–1661. doi: 10.1007/s13304-021-01135-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nowakowski M, Malczak P, Mizera M, et al. The safety of selective use of splenic flexure mobilization in sigmoid and rectal resections-systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2018;7:392. doi: 10.3390/jcm7110392. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources