Totally intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis (TICA) after segmental colorectal resection for deep endometriosis: technical notes and case series

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of totally intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis (TICA) in patients undergoing colorectal resection for the treatment of deep endometriosis (DE) affecting the bowel.

Between January 2021 and August 2024, 33 consecutive patients with DE treated with segmental colorectal resec- tion were enrolled. In 30 patients, TICA was performed. Demographic, operative, and postoperative data were collected retrospectively.

The mean distance between the endometriotic nodule and the anal verge was 11.5 (7–18) cm. The mean operative time was 282.83 (190–512) minutes. No major intraoperative complications occurred. Three (10%) patients developed a minor (Clavien‒Dindo grade I/II) postoperative complication.

TICA is a safe and feasible technique and represents a valid alternative reconstruction method after colorectal resection for DE.

Deep endometriosis · Colorectal resection · Colorectal anastomosis · Laparoscopic surgery

Deep endometriosis (DE) is an infiltrative form of endome- triosis affecting the bowel, usually the rectum and sigmoid colon, in 8–12% of cases [1 , 2]. Colorectal resection is the most radical surgical approach in the treatment of selected cases of DE affecting the bowel [3]. However, mini laparot- omy in combination with colorectal resections is associated with postoperative complications, such as wound infections, incisional hernias, and worse cosmetic results. Hence, over the years, the mainstream surgical treatment of DE has been to reduce surgical trauma and invasiveness, developing new anastomotic techniques, such as natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) [4 , 5]. Recently, we described a new technique of totally intracorporeal colorec- tal anastomosis (TICA) [6] after colorectal resection for DE, also used successfully for some cases of recurrent ovarian cancer [7]. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasi- bility of TICA in patients with DE in terms of the short-term outcome.

The present paper reports the results from 33 consecu- tive single-center colorectal resections for DE performed at Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli between January 2021 and August 2024, selected to perform TICA. All patients with intestinal DE were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team, including a gynecologist, a radiologist, and a general * Miriam Attalla El Halabieh [email protected] 1 Surgical Unit of Peritoneum and Retroperitoneum, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy 2 Unit of Oncological Gynaecology, Women’s Children’s and Public Health Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy 3 Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy 556 Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2025) 312:555–561 surgeon specializing in minimally invasive colorectal sur - gery. We included all patients who underwent laparoscopic radical surgery for DE with segmental intestinal resection performed with IMA preservation and pelvic nerve-sparing techniques [8 ] in which the feasibility of performing the TICA was assessed preoperatively; if not feasible, a colorec- tal anastomosis was performed using the standard technique (Fig.  1). Segmental intestinal resection was performed in patients with symptoms of bowel obstruction, nodules > 3 cm, multiple nodules, full-thickness invasion reaching the mucosa and failure of conservative surgical techniques. Data regarding history and preoperative evaluation were recorded. All women were subjected to rectovaginal examination, advanced transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. In cases of sub-occlusive symptoms, either a colonoscopy or double barium enema was further required to evaluate the stenosis. The opera- tive and postoperative data were reviewed. Complications were subdivided into minor complications, corresponding to Clavien‒Dindo grade I and II, and major complications, corresponding to Clavien‒ Dindo grade III and IV [9 ]. Informed consent was obtained from all individual partici- pants included in the study. The study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (IRB-number of protocol DIPUSVSP-25-06-2156). Preoperative care, surgical technique and postoperative care In preparation for surgery, all patients followed a 5-day res- idue-free diet and underwent mechanical bowel preparation consisting of a 4-l split dose of Macrogol: 2 L 2 days before surgery and 2 L the day before surgery. All patients received antibiotic prophylaxis 30 min preoperatively (1–2-g cefa - zolin iv. and 500-mg metronidazole iv.). All patients were operated on by a multidisciplinary surgical team widely experienced in laparoscopic surgical excision of bowel endo- metriosis, including a gynecologist and a colorectal surgeon. The operative room setup was the same for all procedures. The patient was positioned in an anti-Trendelenburg posi- tion. Pneumoperitoneum was established using a 12 mm umbilical trocar, and the gynecological surgical procedures were performed using three 5-mm trocars placed in the suprapubic area, left iliac fossa, and right iliac fossa. Intesti- nal resection was performed using the same trocar positions except for a 12-mm trocar in the right iliac fossa in place of the 5-mm trocar and a fourth 5-mm trocar on the right flank (Fig. 2). The peritoneum of the mesosigma was opened above the root of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA), stay- ing as close to the bowel wall as possible. The sigmoid ves- sels, which supply the bowel segment to be resected, were progressively identified and selectively ligated. The dissec- tion was carried out until reaching the rectal wall below the endometriotic nodule, and then the rectum was transected with a linear stapler, Echelon Flex™ Endopath® Staplers (EFES) 60 mm (Ethicon, Cincinnati, OH, USA). Before anastomosis, the anvil of a circular stapling device (EEA™ circular stapler with Tri-Staple ™ technology, 28 mm or 31-mm Medium/Thick, Covidien, New Haven, CT, USA) was prepared with a 0 Vicryl suture, which was bound at the hole of the tip. The anvil was brought into the abdominal cavity through the opening for the 12-mm port in the right abdominal flank. A colotomy was performed at the colonic wall just proximal to the endometriotic nodule (Fig.  3). The anvil was introduced into the colon through the colotomy (Fig.  3). The linear stapler was arranged to include the whole Fig. 1 This flow diagram illustrates the total number of patients who underwent surgery for deep endometriosis (DE) at our center from 2021 to 2024, detailing how many of them underwent segmental intestinal resection and the type of colo- rectal anastomosis performed 557Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2025) 312:555–561 colotomy. The suture attached to the rod of the anvil was removed from the superior border of the colotomy, keeping the Vicryl suture out of the linear stapler. The colon was then transected with the linear stapler (Fig.  3). The suture was pulled out of the colon, allowing the rod of the anvil to exit the colon next to the suture line. The circular stapler was introduced in the rectum, and end-to-end anastomosis was performed. The specimen was extracted through the 12 mm port on the right flank. At the end of the procedure, an air leak test was performed to evaluate anastomosis integrity. One drainage was left in place in the pouch of Douglas. On the first postoperative day, oral fluid intake was allowed, Fig. 2 Placement of the surgical ports during gynecological procedures (A) and TICA (B) Fig. 3 Colotomy is performed at the colonic wall just proximal to the endometriotic nodul (A), the anvil is introduced into the colon through the colotomy (B), the colon is transected with a linear stapler and the suture is pulled out of the colon (C), colorectal end-to-end anastomosis (D) 558 Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2025) 312:555–561 and from the second postoperative day, patients started a low-fiber diet until tolerance for solid food and passage of flatus and stool occurred. Postoperative pain was measured by VAS score, and all patients received paracetamol 1 g iv every 8 h on demand and continued orally when feasible.

Patient demographics and preoperative characteristics are summarized in Table  1. Among the 33 resections, we expe- rienced 3 (9.1%) intraoperative complications that did not allow us to complete the TICA. In one case, during the extraction of the anvil, the tip was caught in the suture line. In the other two cases, the colon was too small, so we could not laparoscopically introduce the anvil. In both cases, we performed a classical anastomosis with the Pfannenstiel inci- sion. Hence, we excluded these three patients, and we con- ducted the subsequent analysis only on the 30 patients who underwent TICA. The mean patient age was 38.83 (32–52) years, and the mean patient BMI was 21.63 (18–27) kg/ m2. The mean distance between the endometriotic nodule and the anal verge was 11.5 (7–18) cm. The median size of the intestinal endometriotic implants was 34.2 (20–40) mm. The mean rASRM score was 61.5. Table 2 summarizes the operative and postoperative details. The mean operative time was 282.83 (190–512) minutes. The mean estimated intraoperative blood loss was 129.16 (50–300) ml. No major intraoperative complications occurred, and no conversions to laparotomy were necessary. Three (10%) patients developed a minor (Clavien‒ Dindo grade I/II) postoperative compli- cation: two postoperative bleeding of the anastomosis that did not require any surgical or endoscopic intervention and one postoperative ileus that was medically treated. No major (Clavien‒Dindo grade III/IV) complications occurred. The complete operative details and postoperative complications are shown in Table  2. After 3 months, three patients (10%) with protective ileostomy underwent rectal contrast enema and subsequent ostomy closure.

We present a series of thirty consecutive colorectal resec- tions for deep endometriosis (DE) performed with a nerve- sparing technique plus IMA preservation [10] in which TICA was successfully performed without any modification of the standard practice. The 30-day complication rate is similar to that reported in the literature by other authors [11, 12] after colorectal resections for DE, showing that TICA Table 1 Patient demographics and preoperative characteristics Nominal variables are described with number of cases (n) and percent (%) a Median value Variables N (30) Age (mean, SD) years 38.83 (32–52) BMI (mean, SD) 21.63 (18–27) Previous surgery for endometriosis 8 (26.7%) Ormonal Therapy 3 months previous surgery 30 (100%) Preoperative symptoms  Dysmenorrhea (vas) a 7.58  Dischezia (vas) a 5.75  Dysuria (vas) a 1.33  Dyspareunia (vas) a 6  Chronic pelvic pain (vas) a 6.25  Constipation 12 (40%)  Diarrhea 0  Rectal bleeding 2 (6.7%)  Symptomatic colorectal stenosis 13 (43.3%)  STAGE rASRM 61.5 Intestinal DE  Intestinal lesions > 3 cm 25 (83.3%)  Multiple intestinal lesions 5 (16.7%)  Major nodule dimension (mean, SD) mm 34.2 (20–40)  Nodule location   Sigmoid colon 13 (43.3%)   Rectum 17 (56.7%)  Distance from anal verge (cm) 11.5 (7–18) Table 2 Intraoperative and posoperative data Nominal variables are described with number of cases (n) and percent (%) a One patient with simultaneously ureteral resection and reimplanta- tion, one patient with simultaneously ileocecal resection, one patient with multiple comorbidities Variables N (30) Intraoperative Blood loss (mean, SD), ml 129.16 (50–300) Operative time (mean, SD) min 282.83 (190–512) Diverting enterostomy% 3 (10%)a Intraoperative complications 0 Conversion, n (%) 0 Postoperative Start of postoperative diet Day 1 23 (76.7%) Day 2 7 (23.3%) Time to resume intestinal function (days) 3.5 (1–6) Postoperative hospital stays days 5.4 (4–10) Postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo) 3 (10%) Grade I–II 3 (10%) Grade III–IV 0 Readmission, n (%) 0 559Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2025) 312:555–561 is a safe, effective and reproducible anastomotic surgical technique. The concept behind this technique’s design is that in most cases, only a short tract of the bowel is resected during DE colorectal surgery; moreover, there is no need to resect the mesum as in oncologic colorectal surgery. In our experience, after a typical bowel resection for DE, a large part of the mesum should be resected only to remove the colon from the Pfannenstiel incision (Fig. 4). When performing a TICA, there is no need to achieve wide mobilization; therefore, a considerable part of the mesocolon and the surrounding sigmoid vessels and nerves are saved. Considering this concept, a better indication for TICA is when intestinal DE appears as a single nodule or even multiple but closely spaced nodules, and a short resection can be performed. In contrast, the presence of multiple and outlying nodules, which require a wider resection and mobi- lization, makes patients less suitable for a safe application of this technique. In the surgical approach of young women with intestinal DE, our anastomotic technique offers different advantages. First, by avoiding the Pfannenstiel incision, TICA provides better cosmetic results, less postoperative pain and a lower risk of developing postoperative wound infection and post- incisional hernia. Second, there is no need to widen the dis- tal stump resection, as in the case of transanal extraction of the specimen in which the rectal stump is left open at first to extract the specimen and insert the anvil and then resected a second time. This advantage is not relevant in the case of a higher resection but is paramount when a resection in the middle and low rectum has been performed. Moreover, avoiding the opening of the vagina avoids injury to a healthy organ and reduces the risk of rectovaginal fistulas. Another possible advantage of TICA is that performing colorectal anastomosis in a totally intracorporeal way allows us to avoid wide mobilization of the colon, which is normally removed through the Pfannenstiel incision; therefore, a con- siderable part of the mesocolon and the surrounding sigmoid vessels and nerves are preserved, further reducing the risk of intestinal denervation of the proximal and distal stump. Improvement in functional outcomes should be confirmed by further studies. Over the years, various laparoscopic techniques of intra- corporeal colorectal anastomosis have been developed to improve the minimally invasive approach of laparoscopic surgery in DE [13–15]. The NOSE technique for segmental colorectal resection in patients with DE is one of the most described techniques in the literature due to the outstanding cosmetic results and with a lower risk of incisional hernia and postoperative infections, less postoperative pain, and less analgesia requirements, resulting in a shorter hospital stay [4]. While TICA is similar in many postoperative ben- efits, the NOSE technique, on the other hand, is burdened with technical surgical complexity [16], leading to complica- tions such as a higher risk of peritoneal contamination from the open bowel [17] and distal rectal stump injury [18] in cases of transanal specimen extraction or rectovaginal fistula when transvaginal extraction is performed [19]. A possible technical concern of our technique is the pres- ence of multiple intersections of staple lines on the circu- lar anastomotic plane. The classical Knight–Griffen dou- ble stapling technique (DST) [20, 21] provides two lateral intersecting staple lines (“dog-ears”) and two intersection points with the circular stapling line. Historically, these are considered weak points in DST anastomosis. In TICA, there could be a possible doubling of these intersections because there are two linear stapler lines (proximal colon and rectal stump) that could intersect the circular stapling line. There- fore, there could be up to 4 intersecting points compared to the 2 points of the DST. To avoid this drawback, in some Fig. 4 Shown here is the part of mesocolon and surround- ing sigmoid vessels and nerves saved performing a TICA 560 Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2025) 312:555–561 cases, we used 31-mm circular staplers: the wider area of the circular stapler could include one or both extremities of the proximal and, rarely, distal linear stapler, avoiding dog-ear creation. In some cases, we adopted another pre- caution of an intracorporeal reinforcement suture with 3–0 Vicryl at the intersection point. However, in our experience with colorectal anastomosis with DST, “dog-ears” are not a major risk factor for anastomotic leakage, and there was no case of anastomotic leakage in this case series. We have to report just on case of sub-clinical leakage in one of the patients with protective ileostomy in which the leakage was discovered three months after surgery during the contrast enema. Moreover, this technique involves the preserva- tion of the IMA and the sigmoid vessels to improve the vascularization of both the proximal stump and the distal stump. The downside is that we experienced anastomotic bleeding in 2 patients (6.7%); hence, attention should be given to this specific postoperative complication. The intra- abdominal opening of the colon is part of TICA, and this can lead to possible intra-abdominal contamination, as in NOSE with transrectal extraction. However, in our series, we did not observe an increase in intra-abdominal infections or abscesses. Last, it must be said that TICA is a technically complex procedure requiring advanced laparoscopic skills. The most difficult part of the procedure is introducing the anvil into the proximal colonic stump. In fact, we report 2 cases (6.7%) in which we were unable to complete the pro- cedure, and it was due to problems in introducing the anvil into the proximal stump. However, no differences were seen in terms of in terms of intra and postoperative complications between TICA technique and a classical technique of bowel resection for DE [22].

Our study shows that TICA is a safe and feasible technique in patients who undergo laparoscopic colorectal resection for DE. Further studies are still required to evaluate a possible improvement in functional outcomes. Author contributions Conceptualization: Francesco Santullo, Miriam Attalla El Halabieh, Manuel Ianieri; Methodology: Alessandra Nardone De Cicco; Formal analysis and investigation: Manuel Ianeri, Federica Campolo, Greta Benvenga; Writing—original draft preparation: Mir - iam Attalla El Halabieh, Claudio Lodoli; Writing—review and edit - ing: Francesco Santullo, Carlo Abatini, Federica Ferracci; Supervision: Fabio Pacelli, Giovanni Scambia. Funding Open access funding provided by Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the prepa- ration of this manuscript. Data availability No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

1. Abrão MS, Petraglia F, Falcone T et al (2015) Deep endometriosis infiltrating the recto-sigmoid: critical factors to consider before management. Hum Reprod Update 21:329–339. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ humupd/ dmv003 2. Koninckx PR, Ussia A, Adamyan L et al (2012) Deep endometrio- sis: definition, diagnosis, and treatment. Fertil Steril 98:564–571. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fertn stert. 2012. 07. 1061 3. Minelli L, Fanfani F, Fagotti A et al (2009) Laparoscopic colorec- tal resection for bowel endometriosis: feasibility, complications, and clinical outcome. Arch Surg 144:234–239. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1001/ archs urg. 2008. 555 4. Bokor A, Lukovich P, Csibi N et al (2018) Natural orifice speci- men extraction during laparoscopic bowel resection for colorectal endometriosis: technique and outcome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25:1065–1074. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jmig. 2018. 02. 006 5. Akladios C, Faller E, Afors K et al (2014) Totally laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis with natural orifice specimen extrac- tion (NOSE) techniques, particularly suitable for bowel endome- triosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:1095–1102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jmig. 2014. 05. 003 6. Santullo F, Attalla El Halabieh M, Lodoli C et al (2021) Totally intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis after segmental sigmoid resection with inferior mesenteric artery preservation for deep infiltrating endometriosis. Tech Coloproctol 25:745–746. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10151- 020- 02405-4 7. Gallotta V, Palmieri L, Santullo F, Certelli C, Lodoli C, Abatini C, El Halabieh MA, D’Indinosante M, Federico A, Rosati A, Conte C, Oliva R, Fagotti A, Scambia G (2024) Robotic rectosig- moid resection with totally intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis (TICA) for recurrent ovarian cancer: a case series and description of the technique. J Pers Med 14(10):1052. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ jpm14 101052. (PMID: 39452559; PMCID: PMC11508377) 8. Ianieri MM, De Cicco Nardone A, Benvenga G, Greco P, Pafundi PC, Alesi MV, Campolo F, Lodoli C, Abatini C, Attalla El Hala- bieh M, Pacelli F, Scambia G, Santullo F (2024) Vascular- and nerve-sparing bowel resection for deep endometriosis: a retrospec- tive single-center study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 164(1):277–285. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ijgo. 15019. (PMID: 37555349) 561Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2025) 312:555–561 9. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213 10. Raffaelli R, Garzon S, Baggio S et al (2018) Mesenteric vascular and nerve sparing surgery in laparoscopic segmental intestinal resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 231:214–219. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ejogrb. 2018. 10. 057 11. Ruffo G, Scopelliti F, Scioscia M et al (2010) Laparoscopic colorectal resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis: analysis of 436 cases. Surg Endosc 24:63–67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00464- 009- 0517-0 12. Meuleman C, Tomassetti C, D’Hoore A et al (2011) Surgical treat- ment of deeply infiltrating endometriosis with colorectal involve- ment. Hum Reprod Update 17:311–326. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ humupd/ dmq057 13. Akamatsu H, Omori T, Oyama T et al (2009) Totally laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy: a simple and safe technique for intracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 23:2605–2609. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00464- 009- 0406-6 14. Huang C-C, Chen Y-C, Huang C-J, Hsieh J-S (2016) Totally lap- aroscopic colectomy with intracorporeal side-to-end colorectal anastomosis and transrectal specimen extraction for sigmoid and rectal cancers. Ann Surg Oncol 23:1164–1168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1245/ s10434- 015- 4984-3 15. Bucher P, Wutrich P, Pugin F et al (2008) Totally intracorpor - eal laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis using circular sta- pler. Surg Endosc 22:1278–1282. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00464- 007- 9607-z 16. Grigoriadis G, Merlot B, Dennis T, Roman H (2023) Colectomy for endometriosis with natural orifice specimen extraction tech- nique in 10 steps: a video vignette. Colorectal Dis 25:505–507. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ codi. 16340 17. Costantino FA, Diana M, Wall J et al (2012) Prospective evalua- tion of peritoneal fluid contamination following transabdominal vs. transanal specimen extraction in laparoscopic left-sided colo- rectal resections. Surg Endosc 26:1495–1500. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00464- 011- 2066-6 18. Franklin ME, Liang S, Russek K (2013) Natural orifice speci- men extraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: transanal and transvaginal approaches. Tech Coloproctol 17:63–67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10151- 012- 0938-y 19. Diana M, Perretta S, Wall J et al (2011) Transvaginal specimen extraction in colorectal surgery: current state of the art. Colorec- tal Dis 13:e104–e111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1463- 1318. 2011. 02599.x 20. Dean Griffen F, Knight CD, Whitaker JM (1990) The double sta- pling technique for low anterior resection results, modifications, and observations. Ann Surg 211(6):745–752 21. Redmond HP, Austin OMB, Clery AP, Deasy JM (1993) Safety of double-stapled anastomosis in low anterior resection. Br J Surg 80:924–927. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bjs. 18008 00746 22. Ianieri MM, De Cicco Nardone A, Greco P, Carcagnì A, Campolo F, Pacelli F, Scambia G, Santullo F (2024) Totally intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis (TICA) versus classical mini-laparotomy for specimen extraction, after segmental bowel resection for deep endometriosis: a single-center experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 309(6):2697–2707. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00404- 024- 07412-6. (PMID: 38512463; PMCID: PMC11147928) Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.