Long-term outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer

Supine bottom-up extralevator abdominoperineal excision for anorectal adenocarcinoma is not inferior to standard approach and may be thus safely performed

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal carcinoma has been described in order to improve pathological and oncological results compared to standard APE. To obtain the same oncological advantages as extralevator APE, we have previously described a new procedure starting by a perineal approach: the supine bottom-up APE. Our objective is to compare oncological and surgical outcomes between the supine bottom-up APE and the standard APE.

METHODS

All patients with low rectal adenocarcinoma requiring APE were retrospectively included and divided into 2 groups: supine bottom-up APE (Group A) and standard APE (Group B).

RESULTS

From 2008 to 2016, 61 patients were divided into Groups A (n = 30) and B (n = 31). Postoperative outcomes and median length of stay were similar between groups. Patients from Group A had a significantly longer distal margin (30 [8-120] vs. 20 [1.5-60] mm, p = 0.04) and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (14.5 [0-33] vs. 11 [5-25], p = 0.03) than those from Group B. Circumferential resection margin involvement was similar between groups (28 vs. 22%, p = 0.6), whereas tumors from Group A were significantly larger and more frequently classified as T4 than those from Group B. Operative time was significantly shorter in Group A (437.5 [285-655] minutes) than in Group B (537.5 [361-721] minutes, p = 0.0009). At the end of follow-up, local recurrence occurred in 7 and 16% of patients from Groups A and B (p = 0.68). Three-year overall and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups (87 vs. 90%, p = 0.62 and 61 vs. 63%, p = 0.88, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that supine bottom-up APE doesn't impair surgical outcomes, pathological results, overall and disease-free survivals in comparison with standard APE. This new procedure may be thus safely performed and decrease the operative time. Further randomized multicentric studies are required to confirm these results.

Tailored concept for the plastic closure of pelvic defects resulting from extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) or pelvic exenteration

PURPOSE

No standard exists for reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and pelvic exenteration. We propose a tailored concept with the use of bilateral gluteal V-Y advancement flaps in non-extended ELAPE and with vertical myocutaneous rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM) flaps in extended procedures. This retrospective study analyzes the feasibility of this concept.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrieved all consecutive patients after ELAPE or pelvic exenteration for rectal, anal, or vulva cancer with flap repair from a prospective database. Perineal wound complications were defined as the primary endpoint. Outcomes for the two different flap reconstructions were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2021, we identified 107 patients who met the study criteria. Four patients underwent exenteration with VRAM flap repair after previous V-Y flap fashioning. Therefore, we report on 75 V-Y and 36 VRAM flaps. The V-Y group contained more rectal carcinomas, and the VRAM group exhibited more patients with recurrent cancer, more multivisceral resections, and longer operation times. Perineal wound complications occurred in 21.3% in the V-Y group and in 36.1% in the VRAM group (p = 0.097). Adjusted odds ratio for perineal wound complication was not significantly different for the two flap types.

CONCLUSION

Concerning perineal wound complications, our concept yields favorable results for V-Y flap closure indicating that this less invasive approach is sufficient for non-extended ELAPE. Advantages are a shorter operation time, less donor site morbidity, and the option of a second repair. VRAM flaps were reserved for larger wounds after pelvic exenteration or vaginal repair.

Long-term outcomes after extra-levator versus conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer

Purpose

Extralevator (ELAPE) and abdominoperineal excision (APE) are two major surgical approaches for low rectal cancer patients. Although excellent short-term efficacy is achieved in patients undergoing ELAPE, the long-term benefits have not been established. In this study we evaluated the safety, pathological and survival outcomes in rectal cancer patients who underwent ELAPE and APE.

Methods

One hundred fourteen patients were enrolled, including 68 in the ELAPE group and 46 in the APE group at the Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University from January 2011 to November 2020. The baseline characteristics, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were calculated and compared between the two groups.

Results

Demographics and tumor stage were comparable between the two groups. The 5-year PFS (67.2% versus 38.6%, log-rank P = 0.008) were significantly improved in the ELAPE group compared to the APE group, and the survival advantage was especially reflected in patients with pT3 tumors, positive lymph nodes or even those who have not received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Multivariate analysis showed that APE was an independent risk factor for OS (hazard ratio 3.000, 95% confidence interval 1.171 to 4.970, P = 0.004) and PFS (hazard ratio 2.730, 95% confidence interval 1.506 to 4.984, P = 0.001).

Conclusion

 Compared with APE, ELAPE improved long-term outcomes for low rectal cancer patients, especially among patients with pT3 tumors, positive lymph nodes or those without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-022-01692-y.

Indocyanine Green Near-Infrared Fluoroangiography Is a Useful Tool in Reducing the Risk of Anastomotic Leakage Following Left Colectomy

Purpose

To evaluate whether visualization of the colon perfusion with indocyanine green near-infrared fluoroangiography (ICG-NIFA) reduces the rate of anastomotic leakage (AL) after colorectal anastomosis.

Methods

Patients who underwent elective left colectomy, including all procedures involving the sigmoid colon and the rectum with a colorectal or coloanal anastomosis, were retrospectively analyzed for their demographics, operative details, and the rate of AL. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare patients with and without ICG-NIFA-based evaluation.

Results

Overall, our study included 132 colorectal resections [70 sigmoid resections and 62 total mesorectal excisions (TMEs)], of which 70 (53%) were performed with and 62 (47%) without ICG-NIFA. Patients' characteristics were similar between both the groups. The majority of the procedures [91 (69%)] were performed by certified colorectal surgeons, while 41 (31%) operations were supervised teaching procedures. In the ICG-NIFA group, bowel perfusion could be visualized by fluorescence (dye) in all 70 cases, and no adverse effects related to the fluorescent dye were observed. Following ICG-NIFA, the transection line was changed in 9 (12.9%) cases. Overall, 10 (7.6%) patients developed AL, 1 (1.4%) in the ICG-NIFA group and 9 (14.5%) in the no-ICG-NIFA group (p = 0.006). The multivariate analysis revealed ICG-NIFA as an independent factor to reduce AL.

Conclusion

These results suggest that ICG-NIFA might be a valuable tool to reduce the rate of AL in sigmoid and rectal resections in an educational setting.

Association of certification, improved quality and better oncological outcomes for rectal cancer in a specialized colorectal unit

PURPOSE

Centralization of cancer care is expected to yield superior results. In Germany, the national strategy is based on a voluntary certification process. The effect of centre certification is difficult to prove because quality data are rarely available prior to certification. This observational study aims to assess outcomes for rectal cancer patients before and after implementation of a certified cancer centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients treated for rectal cancer in our certified centre from 2009 to 2017 were retrieved from a prospective database. The dataset was analyzed according to a predefined set of 19 quality indicators comprising 36 quality goals. The results were compared to an identical cohort of patients, treated from 2000 to 2008 just before centre implementation.

RESULTS

In total, 1059 patients were included, 481 in the 2009-2017 interval and 578 in the 2000-2008 interval. From 2009 to 2017, 25 of 36 quality goals were achieved (vs. 19/36). The proportion of anastomotic leaks in low anastomoses was improved (13.5% vs. 22.1%, p = 0.018), as was the local 5-year recurrence rate for stage (y)pIII rectal cancers (7.7% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.085), and quality of mesorectal excision (0.3% incomplete resections vs. 5.5%, p = 0.002). Furthermore, a decrease of abdominoperineal excisions was noted (47.1% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.037). For the 2009-2017 interval, local 5-year recurrence rate in stages (y)p0-III was 4.6% and 5-year overall survival was 80.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Certification as specialized centre and regular audits were associated with an improvement of various quality parameters. The formal certification process has the potential to enhance quality of care for rectal cancer patients.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for advanced low rectal cancer: Where to go

Since its introduction, extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) in the prone position has gained significant attention and recognition as an important surgical procedure for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer. Most studies suggest that because of adequate resection and precise anatomy, ELAPE could decrease the rate of positive circumferential resection margins, intraoperative perforation, and may further decrease local recurrence rate and improve survival. Some studies show that extensive resection of pelvic floor tissue may increase the incidence of wound complications and urogenital dysfunction. Laparoscopic/robotic ELAPE and trans-perineal minimally invasive approach allow patients to be operated in the lithotomy position, which has advantages of excellent operative view, precise dissection and reduced postoperative complications. Pelvic floor reconstruction with biological mesh could significantly reduce wound complications and the duration of hospitalization. The proposal of individualized ELAPE could further reduce the occurrence of postoperative urogenital dysfunction and chronic perianal pain. The ELAPE procedure emphasizes precise anatomy and conforms to the principle of radical resection of tumors, which is a milestone operation for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision versus abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has become a popular procedure for low rectal cancer as compared with abdominoperineal excision (APE). No definitive answer has been achieved whether one is superior to the other. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ELAPE for low rectal cancer with meta-analysis.

METHODS

The Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases before September 2019 were comprehensively searched to retrieve comparative trials of ELAPE and APE for low rectal cancer. Pooled analyses of the perioperative variables, surgical complications, and oncological variables were performed. Odds ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) from each trial were pooled using random or fixed effects model depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. A subgroup analysis or a sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the potential source of heterogeneity when necessary.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 17 studies with 4049 patients, of whom 2248 (55.5%) underwent ELAPE and 1801 (44.5%) underwent APE. There were no statistical differences regarding the circumferential resection margin positivity (13.0% vs. 16.2%, OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.42-1.14, P = 0.15) and post-operative perineal wound complication rate (28.9% vs. 24.1%, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.75-1.94, P = 0.43). The ELAPE was associated with lower rate of intraoperative perforation (6.6% vs. 11.3%, OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.39-0.64, P < 0.001) and local recurrence (8.8% vs. 20.5%, OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.21-0.41, P < 0.001) when compared with APE.

CONCLUSIONS

The ELAPE was associated with a reduction in the rate of intra-operative perforation and local recurrence, without any increase in the circumferential resection margin positivity and post-operative perineal wound complication rate when compared with APE in the surgical treatment of low rectal cancer.

International evaluation of circumferential resection margins after rectal cancer resection: insights from the Swedish and Dutch audits

AIM

This study aimed to determine predictive factors for the circumferential resection margin (CRM) within two northern European countries with supposed similarity in providing rectal cancer care.

METHOD

Data for all patients undergoing rectal resection for clinical tumour node metastasis (TNM) stage I-III rectal cancer were extracted from the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry and the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2011-2015). Separate analyses were performed for cT1-3 and cT4 stage. Predictive factors for the CRM were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 6444 Swedish and 12 089 Dutch patients were analysed. Over time the number of hospitals treating rectal cancer decreased from 52 to 42 in Sweden, and 82 to 79 in the Netherlands. In the Swedish population, proportions of cT4 stage (17% vs 8%), multivisceral resection (14% vs 7%) and abdominoperineal excision (APR) (37% vs 31%) were higher. The overall proportion of patients with a positive CRM (CRM+) was 7.8% in Sweden and 5.4% in the Netherlands. In both populations with cT1-3 stage disease, common independent risk factors for CRM+ were cT3, APR and multivisceral resection. No common risk factors for CRM+ in cT4 stage disease were found. An independent impact of hospital volume on CRM+ could be demonstrated for the cT1-3 Dutch population.

CONCLUSION

Within two northern European countries with implemented clinical auditing, rectal cancer care might potentially be improved by further optimizing the treatment of distal and locally advanced rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection versus laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: A retrospective comparative study from China

BACKGROUND

This study was performed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection (LELAPR) versus laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in patients with lower rectal cancer.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent LELAPR or LAPR in our unit from September 2009 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients' clinicopathological data and short- and long-term outcomes were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 111 patients included in this study, 58 (52%) patients underwent LAPR and 53 (48%) LELAPR. A negative circumferential resection margin was achieved in all the two groups of patients. The LELAPR group had a longer operation time (P = 0.049), more intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.037), shorter hospitalization after surgery (P = 0.002), fewer lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.001), fewer positive lymph nodes (P = 0.002), and a shorter maximum tumor diameter (P < 0.001) compared with the LAPR group. There were also lower rates of intraoperative perforation (P = 0.039) and death (P = 0.013) in the LELAPR group. However, there were no significant differences in the rates of local recurrence (P = 0.144), metastasis (P = 0.111), overall survival (P = 0.404), disease-free survival (P = 0.515), or progression-free survival (P = 0.210) between the two groups. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications including postoperative hernia (P = 0.918), urinary retention (P = 0.579), intestinal obstruction (P = 1.0), and perineal wound complications (P = 0.252).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with LAPR, the LELAPR approach significantly reduced the rate of intraoperative perforation and postoperative death without increasing postoperative complications. LELAPR was beneficial to patients with ulcerative, anterior and advanced lower rectal cancer.

Variation in the Height of Rectal Cancers According to the Diagnostic Modalities

Purpose

Although the height of a rectal tumor above the anal verge (tumor height) partly determines the treatment strategy, no practical standard exists for reporting this. We aimed to demonstrate the differences in tumor height according to the diagnostic modality used for its measurement.

Methods

We identified 100 patients with rectal cancers located within 15 cm of the anal verge who had recorded tumor heights measured by using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), colonoscopy, and digital rectal examination (DRE). Tumor height measured by using MRI was compared with those measured by using DRE and colonoscopy to assess reporting inconsistencies. Factors associated with differences in tumor height among the modalities were also evaluated.

Results

The mean tumor heights were 77.8 ± 3.3, 52.9 ± 2.3, and 68.9 ± 3.1 mm when measured by using MRI, DRE, and colonoscopy, respectively (P < 0.001). Agreement among the 3 modalities in terms of tumor sublocation within the rectum was found in only 39% of the patients. In the univariate and the multivariate analyses, clinical stage showed a possible association with concordance among modalities, but age, sex, and luminal location of the tumor were not associated with differences among modalities.

Conclusion

The heights of rectal cancer differed according to the diagnostic modality. Tumor height has implications for rectal cancer’s surgical planning and for interpreting comparative studies. Hence, a consensus is needed for measuring and reporting tumor height.

Oncological outcomes before and after the extralevator abdominoperineal excision era in rectal cancer patients treated with abdominoperineal excision in a single centre, high volume unit

AIM

The extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has been expected to reduce the risk of positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) and local recurrence in locally advanced distal rectal cancer. The aim was to determine whether there is any difference in local recurrence rates between patients who were operated on for distal rectal cancer before and after the introduction of ELAPE in our unit.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 206 patients with distal rectal cancer without distant metastases (T1-4N0-2M0) were treated with curative intent. The patients were divided into two cohorts operated in 2000-2007 (A) and 2008-2014 (B). The ELAPE procedure was introduced in 2008. Since then, it has been used in cases of T4 and T3 tumours with threatened margins. In T1-T3 tumours without threatened margins a conventional abdominal perineal excision has been performed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall survival or cancer-specific survival between the two time periods. The local recurrence rate was 15.5% in group A and 6.7% in group B (P = 0.048), although there was no significant difference in the cumulative local recurrence rate. Intra-operative tumour perforation occurred significantly more often during the earlier period when ELAPE was not in use: group A 15/71 (21.1%) vs group B 11/135 (8.1%), P = 0.01. CRM was positive more often in group A (16.4%) vs group B (7.4%), P = 0.054.

CONCLUSION

The local recurrence rate, intra-operative tumour perforation and positive CRM rate were significantly lower during the later period when more extensive surgery (ELAPE) was performed for locally advanced T3-T4 rectal cancer with threatened margins.

Preliminary Outcome of Individualized Abdominoperineal Excision for Locally Advanced Low Rectal Cancer

Background:

The introduction of individualized abdominoperineal excision (APE) may minimize operative trauma and reduce the rate of complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of individualized APE for low rectal cancer.

Methods:

Fifty-six patients who underwent individualized APE from June 2011 to June 2015 were evaluated retrospectively in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University. The main outcome measures were circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, intraoperative perforation, postoperative complications, and local recurrence. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 16.0.

Results:

Fifty (89%) patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy: 51 (91%) patients were treated with the sacrococcyx preserved; 27 (48%) patients with the levator ani muscle partially preserved bilaterally; 20 (36%) patients with the levator ani muscle partially preserved unilaterally and the muscle on the opposite side totally preserved; 7 (13%) patients with intact levator ani muscle and part of the ischioanal fat bilaterally dissected; and 2 (4%) patients with part of the ischioanal fat and intact lavator ani muscle dissected unilaterally and the muscle on the opposite side partially preserved. The most common complications included sexual dysfunction (12%), perineal wound complications (13%), urinary retention (7%), and chronic perineal pain (5%). A positive CRM was demonstrated in 3 (5%) patients, and intraoperative perforations occurred in 2 (4%) patients. On multiple logistic regression analysis, longer operative time (P = 0.032) and more intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.006) were significantly associated with perineal procedure-related complications. The local recurrence was 4% at a median follow-up of 53 months (range: 30–74 months).

Conclusion:

With preoperative chemoradiotherapy, individualized APE may be a relatively safe and feasible approach for low rectal cancer with acceptable oncological outcomes.

Application of modified primary closure of the pelvic floor in laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision for low rectal cancer

AIM

To introduce a novel, modified primary closure technique of laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision (LELAPE) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 76 patients with rectal cancer who underwent LELAPE from March 2013 to May 2016. Patients were classified into the modified primary closure group (32 patients) and the biological mesh closure group (44 patients). The total operating time, reconstruction time, postoperative stay duration, total cost, postoperative complications and tumor recurrence were compared.

RESULTS

All surgery was successfully performed. The pelvic reconstruction time was 14.6 ± 3.7 min for the modified primary closure group, which was significantly longer than that of the biological mesh closure group (7.2 ± 1.9 min, P < 0.001). The total operating time was not different between the two groups (236 ± 20 min vs 248 ± 43 min, P = 0.143). The postoperative hospital stay duration was 8.1 ± 1.9 d, and the total cost was 9297 ± 1260 USD for the modified primary closure group. Notably, both of these categories were significantly lower in this group than those of the biological mesh closure group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). There were no differences observed between groups when comparing other perioperative data, long-term complications or oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The modified primary closure method for reconstruction of the pelvic floor in LELAPE for low rectal cancer is technically feasible, safe and cost-effective.

Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision in locally advanced rectal cancer: a retrospective study with long-term follow-up

PURPOSE

To analyze the results of abdominoperineal excisions (APE) for locally advanced rectal cancer at our institution before and after the adoption of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) with a special reference to long-term survival.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary referral center. All consecutive patients operated for locally advanced (TNM classification T3-4) rectal cancer with APE in 2004-2009 were compared to patients with similar tumors operated with ELAPE in 2009-2016.

RESULTS

Forty-two ELAPE and 27 APE patients were included. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) was less than 1 mm (R1-resection) in 10 (24%) of ELAPE patients and 11 (41%) of APE patients (p = 0.1358). Intraoperative perforation (IOP) occurred in 4 (10%) patients and 6 (22%) patients in ELAPE and APE groups, respectively (p = 0.1336). There were 3 (7%) local recurrences (LRs) in ELAPE group and 5 (19%) in APE (p = 0.2473). There were no statistical differences in adverse events, overall survival, or disease-free survival between ELAPE and APE groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a non-significant tendency to lower rates of IOP and positive CRM as well as lower rate of LR in the ELAPE group. Long-term survival and adverse events did not differ between the groups. ELAPE is beneficial for the surgeon in offering better vicinity to the perineal area and better work ergonomics. These technical aspects and the clinically very important tendency to lower rate of LR support the use of ELAPE technique in spite of the lack of survival benefit.

Biological mesh reconstruction of the pelvic floor following abdominoperineal excision for cancer: A review

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration are mutilating operations that leave wide perineal wounds. Such large wounds are prone to infection and perineal herniation, and their closure is a major concern to most surgeons. Different approaches to the perineal repair exist, varying from primary or mesh closure to myocutaneous flaps. Each technique has its own associated advantages and potential complications and the ideal approach is still debated. In the present study, we reviewed the current literature and our own local data regarding the use of biological mesh for perineal wound closure. Current evidence suggests that the use of biological mesh carries an acceptable risk of wound complications compared to primary closure and is similar to flap reconstruction. In addition, the rate of perineal hernia is lower in early follow-up, while long-term hernia occurrence appears to be similar between the different techniques. Finally, it is an easy and quick reconstruction method. Although more expensive than primary closure, the cost associated with the use of a biological mesh is at least equal, if not less, than flap reconstruction.