4.6 Article

Electrophysiology-based quality assurance of nerve-sparing in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: Is it worth the effort?

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-4787-z

Keywords

Rectal cancer; Laparoscopy; Intraoperative monitoring; Electric stimulation; Autonomic nerves; Quality assurance

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

After low anterior resection for rectal cancer, visual assessment of pelvic autonomic nerve preservation can be difficult due to the complexity of neuroanatomy, as well as surgery- and patient-related factors. The present study aimed to evaluate nerve-sparing quality assurance using the laparoscopic neuromapping (LNM) technique. We prospectively investigated a series of 30 patients undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection. Nerve-sparing was evaluated both visually and electrophysiologically. LNM was performed using stimulation of pelvic autonomic nerves under simultaneous cystomanometry and processed electromyography of the internal anal sphincter. Urogenital and anorectal functions were evaluated using validated and standardized questionnaires preoperatively, at short-term follow-up, and at mid-term follow-up at a median of 9 months (range 6-12 months) after surgery. One patient reported new onset of urinary dysfunction, and another patient reported new onset of anorectal dysfunction. Of the 20 sexually active patients, five reported sexual dysfunction. Visual assessment by laparoscopy confirmed complete nerve preservation in 28 of 30 cases. For prediction of urinary and anorectal function, LNM sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and overall accuracy were each 100 %. LNM with combined assessment for prediction of sexual function yielded a sensitivity of 80 %, specificity of 93 %, positive predictive value of 80 %, negative predictive value of 93 %, and overall accuracy of 90 %. LNM is an appropriate method for reliable quality assurance of laparoscopic nerve-sparing.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available