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

Application of modified extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ELAPE surgery has been carried out in our center for a long time, and some modifications have been made in clinical practice. In this study, we compared conventional ELAPE operation with modified ELAPE operation to investigate the efficacy and safety of modified ELAPE operation.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data from 339 patients with low rectal cancer undergoing abdominoperineal resection from 2017 to 2021 in the Department of General Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University. Patients were classified into modified ELAPE groups (199 patients) and conventional ELAPE groups (140 patients). Total operation time, reconstruction time, postoperative hospital stay, total cost, intraoperative data, postoperative short-term and long-term complications and tumor recurrence were compared.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Total operation time was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (190.6 ± 33.1 min vs 230.1 ± 51.6 min, P = 0.022). Pelvic floor reconstruction time was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (4.3 ± 1.2 min vs 11.9 ± 1.7 min, P = 0.004). Positive CRM was observed in 11 and 9 patients in modified ELAPE groups and conventional ELAPE groups (P = 0.744). IOP occurred in 12 and 7 patients in modified ELAPE group and conventional ELAPE group (P = 0.701). Total cost was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (9004 ± 1146 USD vs 10,336 ± 2047 USD, P = 0.031). The incidence of parastomal hernia was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (7/199 vs 22/140, P < 0.001). Three-year follow-up data did not show any difference in overall survival rate or local occurrence between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Modified ELAPE surgery is technically safe and feasible, and oncologically comparable to that of conventional ELAPE surgery, which can be considered for popularization and application.

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.

Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision (ELAPE) is Not Superior to Abdominoperineal Excision (APE) in the Era of Neoadjuvant Treatment in Rectal Cancer

Aim: To evaluate the effect of extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (ELAPE) on the circumferential resection margin (CRM) and overall survival in comparison to standard abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APE) in patients with advanced rectal cancer. Material and Methods: This retrospective study encompasses patients with advanced rectal cancer operated on with two different methods: prone Jack-Knife position ELAPE and APE. In part of them, neoadjuvant chemoradiation was conducted. Postoperative patient, tumor, and outcome data were analyzed in terms of differences in CRM positivity and overall survival. Results: Of 67 patients treated with either APE (52) or ELAPE (15), 43 were male and 24 were female. Neoadjuvant treatment was conducted on 49 of the total patients. Complete pathological response (T0) was achieved in 3 patients. Positive CRM was reported in 7 patients (11.5 %), 3 in ELAPE and 4 in APE group (p = 0.348). The overall postoperative complication rate was 56.7%. Mean survival period was 42.2 months. Overall survival rate for both groups was 67.2 %. No statistical differences were seen between the ELAPE and APE procedure in terms of overall survival (p = 0.483). Conclusions: Differences between the use of ELAPE and APE in terms of CRM positivity and overall survival were not statistically significant. Therefore, we conclude that ELAPE is not superior to standard APE in the treatment of advanced rectal cancer.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal excision with modified position change for low rectal Cancer treatment

Background

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has been recommended for treating low rectal cancer due to its potential advantages in improving surgical safety and oncologic outcomes as compared to conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE). In ELAPE, however, whether the benefits of intraoperative position change to a prone jackknife position outweighs the associated risks remains controversial. This study is to introduce a modified position change in laparoscopic ELAPE and evaluate its feasibility, safety and the long-term therapeutic outcomes.

Methods

Medical records of 56 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic ELAPE from November 2013 to September 2016 were retrospectively studied. In the operation, a perineal dissection in prone jackknife position was firstly performed and the laparoscopic procedure was then conducted in supine position. Patient characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, pathologic and 5-year oncologic outcomes were analyzed.

Results

The mean operation time was 213.5 ± 29.4 min and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 152.7 ± 125.2 ml. All the tumors were totally resected, without intraoperative perforation, conversion to open surgery, postoperative 30-day death, and perioperative complications. All the patients achieved pelvic peritoneum reconstruction without the usage of biological mesh. During the follow-up period, perineal hernia was observed in 1 patient, impaired sexual function in 1 patient, and parastomal hernias in 3 patients. The local recurrence rate was 1.9% and distant metastasis was noted in 12 patients. The 5-year overall survival rate was 76.4% and the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 70.9%.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic ELAPE with modified position change is a simplified, safe and feasible procedure with favorable outcomes. The pelvic peritoneum can be directly closed by the laparoscopic approach without the application of biological mesh.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10019-2.

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.

Widespread anorectal lymphovascular networks and tissue drainage: analyses from submucosal India ink injection and indocyanine green fluorescence imaging

AIM

Abdominoperineal resection is associated with poor prognosis in patients with advanced lower rectal cancer. This study aimed to analyse the functional lymphovascular network and tissue drainage in the anorectal region.

METHODS

In this descriptive study, we performed microanatomical evaluations and intra-operative imaging analysis in a cadaver and patients with rectal cancer. Specimens with India ink injection were collected from a cadaver and from six patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection. Intra-operative indocyanine green fluorescence imaging was performed on four patients who underwent surgery for lower rectal cancer. India ink was injected into the submucosa at the dentate line of specimens. Tissue sections were examined by immunohistochemistry for D2-40 and CD31. Intra-operative indocyanine green was injected into the submucosa at the dentate line. Lymph flow was traced using a near-infrared camera system.

RESULTS

Fascia branching from the rectal longitudinal muscle layer extended to the posterior hiatal ligament and lateral endopelvic fascia connective tissue lamina on the surface of the levator ani muscle. The fascia contained veins labelled with ink in their lumina and initial lymphatics. Intra-operative indocyanine green fluorescence imaging revealed extensive lymph flow from the muscle layer of the anal canal to the hiatal ligament and endopelvic fascia along the longitudinal muscle layer fibres.

CONCLUSIONS

The anorectal region contained widespread venous and lymphatic networks in proportion to its specific connective tissue framework around the longitudinal-muscle-layer-extending muscle bundles, which provides extensive networks for tissue fluid and cells.

Selection and Outcomes in Abdominoperineal Resection

Since the initial descriptions of the abdominoperineal resection by Sir William Ernest Miles which was then followed by the perfection of the total mesorectal excision by Professor Bill Heald, the surgical management of rectal cancer has made tremendous strides. However, even with the advent and sophistication of neoadjuvant therapy, there remains a formidable amount of patients requiring an abdominoperineal resection. The purpose of this review is to delineate the indication and selection process by which patients are determined to require an abdominoperineal resection, as well as the oncologic and overall outcomes associated with the operation.

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.

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.

An anatomic anal sphincter-saving procedure for rectal cancers located at anorectal junction

Background

This study aims to present the feasibility of the open approach of hemilevator excision (HLE) as a promising alternative of the laparoscopic and/or robotic ones for the treatment of low rectal cancer extending to the ipsilateral puborectalis muscle.

Methods

A 60-year-old male patient with a high-grade differentiated rectal adenocarcinoma at the right side of the lower rectum invading puborectalis muscle. The proposed operation consists of a combination of extralevator abdomino-perineal excision (ELAPE), intersphicteric resection (ISR), and low anterior resection (LAR) since it resects the ipsilateral to tumor levator ani muscle (LAM) from its attachment at the internal obturator fascia and the deep part of ipsilateral external anal sphincter (EAS), while the distal part of dissection is completed in the intersphincteric space taking out the internal anal sphincter (IAS). At the contralateral side of the tumor, the dissection plane follows the classic route of LAR.

Results

Pathology proved the oncologic adequacy of resection. MRI at the fourth postoperative week showed clearly the right aspect of anorectal junction free of tumor. Anorectal manometry revealed a fair anorectal function which is in accordance with the findings of clinical assessment of patient after restoring large bowel continuity (post-op Wexner score, 7).

Conclusion

This is the first case of the open HLE that seems to be a good alternative compared to ELAPE or conventional APR, as it offers oncologic adequacy and a fair anorectal function.