Copyright
        ©The Author(s) 2017.
    
    
        World J Gastrointest Surg. Jun 27, 2017; 9(6): 153-160
Published online Jun 27, 2017. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v9.i6.153
Published online Jun 27, 2017. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v9.i6.153
            Table 1 Stepwise approach to rectal dissection
        
    | 1 | Port positions: 10-12 mm - sub-umbilical, RUQ (camera), RIF and LIF; patient in Lloyd-Davies position | 
| 2 | Omentum to supracolic compartment and small bowel stacking | 
| 3 | Identify right ureter | 
| 4 | Start medial dissection at the promontory | 
| 5 | Identify left ureter, then left gonadal, pelvic nerves | 
| 6 | Protect left ureter with surgicel® and Pedicle dissection | 
| 7 | Identify ureter through both windows of mesentery either side of pedicle | 
| 8 | Transect pedicle, confirm haemostasis | 
| 9 | Left lateral dissection, identify left ureter and proceed up to peritoneal reflection; IMV high tie and splenic flexure mobilisation, if required | 
| 10 | Mesorectal Dissection and preparation of rectum for division1 | 
| Right mesorectal dissection up to peritoneal reflection | |
| Posterior dissection (presacral plane down to levator), keep left ureter in view | |
| Divide peritoneal reflection anteriorly and dissect till seminal vesicles/vaginal fornix | |
| Complete both lateral dissection, identify the ureters all the way | |
| Anterior dissection keeping to the plane just posterior to the vesicles/vagina | |
| Rectal Cross stapling (achieve antero-posterior staple line) or proceed to perineal dissection1 | |
| 11 | Intra-corporeal cross stapling of rectum at appropriate level protecting lateral and anterior structures and Grasp stapled end of specimen | 
| 12 | Left iliac fossa port extended as a transverse incision for specimen delivery; protect wound and deliver specimen by the stapled end | 
| 13 | Complete mesenteric ligation, proximal bowel division and prepare proximal bowel for anastomosis | 
| 14 | Close wound, re-establish pneumoperitoneum | 
| 15 | Intra-corporeal bowel anastomosis with no tension, no twist and vital structures protected | 
| 16 | Close incisions | 
            Table 2 Operations (n = 133)
        
    | Operations | Laparoscopic (conversion) | Open | Total | 
| Anterior resections | 66 (2) | 6 | 72 | 
| TME | 4 | 4 | |
| TME + I | 25 (1) | 4 | 29 | 
| TME Hartmann’s | 1 (1) | 1 | |
| APER | 26 (2) | 1 | 27 | 
            Table 3 Post-op stage (n = 133)
        
    | Post-op stage | n | 
| R0 resection | 124 | 
| R1 resection (CRM + ve) | 9 | 
| R2 resection | 0 | 
| T1 | 14 | 
| T2 | 42 | 
| T3 | 58 | 
| T4 | 17 | 
| N0 | 85 | 
| N1 | 31 | 
| N2 | 15 | 
            Table 4 Comparison of circumferential resection margin positive
        
    
            Table 5 Comparison of local recurrence
        
    - Citation: Dhruva Rao PK, Peiris SPM, Arif SS, Davies RA, Masoud AG, Haray PN. Value of multi-disciplinary input into laparoscopic management of rectal cancer - An observational study. World J Gastrointest Surg 2017; 9(6): 153-160
 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v9/i6/153.htm
 - DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v9.i6.153
 
