Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

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.

Retrospective analysis of risk factors for postoperative perineal hernia after endoscopic abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

Background

In contrast to open-surgery abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer, postoperative perineal hernia (PPH) is reported to increase after extralevator APE and endoscopic surgery. In this study, therefore, we aimed to determine the risk factors for PPH after endoscopic APE.

Methods

A total 73 patients who underwent endoscopic APE for rectal cancer were collected from January 2009 to March 2020, and the risk factors for PPH were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

Nineteen patients (26%) developed PPH after endoscopic APE, and the diagnosis of PPH was made at 9–393 days (median: 183 days) after initial surgery. Logistic regression analysis showed that absence of pelvic peritoneal closure alone increased the incidence of PPH significantly (odds ratio; 13.76, 95% confidence interval; 1.48–1884.84, p = 0.004).

Conclusions

This preliminary study showed that pelvic peritoneal closure could prevent PPH after endoscopic APE.

Partial myocutaneous gluteal flap for perineal reconstruction of extralevator abdominoperineal defects. A single surgeon series of 49 cases in 8 years, and a modification of the technique

INTRODUCTION

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal tumours necessitates a reliable method of reconstructing the perineum. The senior author developed the partial myocutaneous gluteal (PMG) flap. We present 49 consecutive reconstructions with the refinement of the original procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational review of patients undergoing ELAPE and PMG reconstruction from 2012 to 2019, with at least 1 year follow-up. The procedure was modified iteratively following our original series, to minimise perineal herniation, specifically by greater mobilisation of the inferior gluteus maximus muscle and separation of the muscle and fasciocutaneous components, allowing closure of the defect around the coccygeal remnant. Perineal herniation and wound complications were recorded. Laparoscopic and open resection techniques were compared, as were outcomes before and after modification of the flap.

RESULTS

There were no flap failures in our cohort of 49 patients. Two patients (4%) required return to theatre acutely for perineal wound complications: one wound dehiscence and one flap-related haematoma. Five patients had evidence of perineal hernia, three prior to any modification of the flap and two following. Three had symptoms of which two required elective repair. The flap modifications were made in response to these cases. There were no significant differences in perineal outcomes for laparoscopic versus open, and before and after flap modification.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last 8 years, we have refined our perineal reconstruction technique following instances of perineal herniation and major wound dehiscence. We believe that the PMG flap provides robust and reliable option for the reconstruction of perineal extralevator abdominoperineal defects.

Perineal Wound Closure Following Abdominoperineal Resection and Pelvic Exenteration for Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration (PE) for the treatment of cancer (mainly anal and rectal cancers) require extensive pelvic resection with a high rate of postoperative complications. The objective of this work was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAMf) and mesh closure on perineal morbidity following APR and PE. The studies were distributed as follows: Group A comparing primary closure (PC) and VRAMf, Group B comparing PC and mesh closure, Group C comparing PC and VRAMf in PE. The meta-analysis of Groups A and B showed PC to be associated with an increase in the rate of total and major perineal wound complications. PC was associated with a decrease in total and major perineal complications in Group C.

Abstract

Background. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration (PE) for the treatment of cancer require extensive pelvic resection with a high rate of postoperative complications. The objective of this work was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAMf) and mesh closure on perineal morbidity following APR and PE (mainly for anal and rectal cancers). Methods. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE for eligible studies as of the year 2000. After data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed to compare perineal wound morbidity. The studies were distributed as follows: Group A comparing primary closure (PC) and VRAMf, Group B comparing PC and mesh closure, and Group C comparing PC and VRAMf in PE. Results. Our systematic review yielded 18 eligible studies involving 2180 patients (1206 primary closures, 647 flap closures, 327 mesh closures). The meta-analysis of Groups A and B showed PC to be associated with an increase in the rate of total (Group A: OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43–0.71; p < 0.01/Group B: OR 0.54, CI 0.17–1.68; p = 0.18) and major perineal wound complications (Group A: OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.35–0.68; p < 0.001/Group B: OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12–1.17; p < 0.01). PC was associated with a decrease in total (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.39–4.35; p < 0.01) and major (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90–3.08; p = 0.1) perineal complications in Group C. Conclusions. Our results confirm the contribution of the VRAMf in reducing major complications in APR. Similarly, biological prostheses offer an interesting alternative in pelvic reconstruction. For PE, an adapted reconstruction must be proposed with specialized expertise.

Is extralevator abdominoperineal resection necessary for low rectal carcinoma in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy era?

Background: We aimed to compare the short-term surgical and early surgical oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator APR (ELAPR) in patients with low rectal carcinoma that have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT), whose abdominal procedures were performed laparoscopically.Methods: One hundred and four patients who underwent APR or ELAPR for stage II/III low rectal carcinoma NACRT between 2013 and 2016 were evaluated by reviewing the standard charts for colorectal carcinoma.Results: Median follow-up for patients in APR group was 56 months(24-67 months) and 52 months(27-64 months) for ELAPR group. The postoperative complication rates were higher in ELAPR than in APR (perineal wound infection 38% vs. 22.5%(p = .03), perineal wound dehiscence 57% vs. 25%(p = .01), persistent perineal pain 28.5% vs. 13%(p = .01), urinary dysfunction 23% vs. 14.5%(p = .02), reoperation 16.5% vs. 4.8%(p = .03), respectively). Circumferential resection margin positivity, the number of lymph nodes dissected, and the rate of intra-operative perforation of the tumor were similar for both surgical techniques. Local recurrence rates at postoperative 2 years were also similar after APR and ELAPR (8% vs. 9.5%, p = .2).Conclusion: We conclude that in the era of routinely used NACRT, ELAPR is not superior to conventional APR for stage II/III low rectal carcinomas. ELAPR is associated with increased morbidity and has no short-term surgical oncological advantage over APR.

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.

Multicenter study of surgical and oncologic outcomes of extra-levator versus conventional abdominoperineal excision for lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The surgical and oncological outcome of extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) procedure remains unclear in low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 194 cases of rectal cancer patients underwent ELAPE or conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) procedure were analyzed in four hospitals' databases from January 2010 to December 2015. Clinicopathological data, overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS) and local recurrence free survival (LRFS) of patients were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

The operation time spent in perineal phase was significantly shorter in the ELAPE group than that in conventional APE procedure (P < 0.001). There were more specimens with excellent or good quality in ELAPE group compared to conventional APE group (P = 0.033). Patients whom underwent ELAPE procedures showed significantly better OS, DFS and LRFS than those underwent conventional APE procedures. Patients with preoperative stage cT3∼T4 (P = 0.033, P = 0.008, P = 0,033), cN+ (P = 0.002, P < 0.001, P = 0.006) and pathological stage III-IV (P = 0.023, P = 0.008, P = 0.016) were associated with significant benefits from ELAPE procedure in terms of OS, DFS and LRFS. DFS differed significantly between two groups of patients whom got preoperative chemoradiation therapy (P = 0.009) or postoperative chemotherapy (P = 0.029). For patients of pathological stage IIII-IV without preoperative chemoradiation, ELAPE procedures resulted in statistically better OS (P = 0.018) and DFS (P = 0.030). ELAPE procedure was an independent risk factor of OS, DFS and LRFS in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Low rectal cancer patients might benefit from ELAPE procedure on both surgical and oncological outcomes, especially in patients with relatively advanced tumors, inspite of the effects of pre-operative radio- and chemotherapy.

Closure of the perineal defect after abdominoperineal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma - ACPGBI Position Statement

BACKGROUND

Perineal wound morbidity is common following abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APE). There is no consensus on the optimum perineal reconstruction method after APE, and in particular 'extra-levator APE' (ELAPE).

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed. This position statement formulated clinical questions and graded the evidence to make recommendations.

RESULTS

Perineal wound complications may be higher following ELAPE compared to 'conventional APE (cAPE)' however there is insufficient evidence to recommend cAPE over ELAPE with regards to the impact upon perineal wound healing. The majority of cAPE studies have used primary closure with varying complication rates reported. Where concerns regarding perineal wound healing exist, myocutaneous flap closure may be considered as an alternative method. There is minimal available evidence on perineal mesh reconstruction following cAPE. Primary closure, mesh use and myocutaneous flap reconstruction following ELAPE has been reported although variations in definitions and low-quality of available evidence limit comparison. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one particular method of perineal closure after ELAPE. Primary perineal closure is likely to have a higher risk of perineal herniation. Myocutaneous flaps and biological mesh have been effectively used in ELAPE closure. There is insufficient evidence to support one particular type of flap or mesh. Perineal wound complication rates are significantly increased when neo-adjuvant radiotherapy is delivered, regardless of surgical technique. There is no evidence that laparoscopy reduces APE perineal wound complications.

CONCLUSION

This position statement updates clinicians on current evidence around perineal closure after APE surgery.

Oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection for the treatment of low rectal cancer: A retrospective review of a single UK tertiary centre experience

Background

The use of abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the management of low rectal cancer has received criticism over high rates of incomplete resection due to tumour involvement at the circumferential resection margin. Extralevator abdominoperineal resection has been advocated as a means of improving complete resection. However, Extralevator abdominoperineal resection can result in increased cost, morbidity and reduced quality of life.

This study aims to assess the histological features and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing standard abdominoperineal resection and discusses the potential role of Extralevator abdominoperineal resection in this cohort.

Method

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of rectal cancer patients at a single centre. Patients undergoing standard APR were included from 01/06/2007 to 31/05/2012 to allow a minimum 2-year follow-up. Data was collected on age, gender, co-morbidity, pre-operative stage, neo-adjuvant therapy, histology, recurrence and mortality.

Results

Seventy patients were identified (45 (64%) male, median age 67; (range 36–85)). 12 (17.1%) patients had a positive circumferential resection margin; 4 (6.1%) tumours were located anteriorly, 8 (11%) were located posteriorly or laterally and may potentially have been completely resected with extralevator abdomino-perineal resection, Number-needed to treat = 9. Positive circumferential resection margin was more common in advanced tumours (p < 0.001). Local recurrence was more common with positive circumferential resection margins (16.7% Vs 0%, p = 0.027), with no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival, although there was a tendency towards worse survival in these patients.

Conclusion

Positive circumferential resection margin following APR resulted in significantly increased local recurrence with a trend towards poorer survival outcomes. Extralevator abdomino-perineal resection may have benefited some of these patients with locally advanced tumours and postero-lateral recurrences. However, this has to be balanced against exposing patients to increased risk of adverse events. We would recommend selective use of Extralevator abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced and node-positive tumours although further studies to help refine selection criteria are required with long-term follow-up.

•

A single high-volume Centre, retrospective study.

•

5 years data of low rectal cancer patients undergoing standard abdomino-perineal resection of rectum (APR).

•

Positive CRM is associated with increased local recurrence.

•

This study reports that careful selection of patients for ELAPE is vital.

•

The numbers needed to treat are 9.

•

ELAPE is advisable in locally advanced and postero-lateral low rectal cancers.

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.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer with biological mesh for pelvic floor reconstruction

Goal

To share our experience of extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer, focusing on perineal repair with biological mesh.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed medical records of all patients with low rectal cancer who underwent the ELAPE procedure using biological mesh for perineal repair at the Gastrointestinal Surgery of Nanjing Drum Power Hospital between January 2013 and September 2015. All patients were closely followed up to now.

Results

A total of 17 patients underwent ELAPE for low rectal cancer was screened. Of these, 15 patients had primary rectal cancer, 1 had local recurrent rectal cancer, and 1 had malignant melanoma. All patients underwent ELAPE successfully without intestinal perforation and got stage I healing in perineum wound without incision infection, dehiscence, cystocele perinealis, urethral dysfunction or intestinal obstruction. Perineum wound hematoma developed in just one patient and had successful percutaneous drainage in one week. During the follow-up, there was no recurrence, perineal hernia, sexual dysfunction, urinary retention, or bowel obstruction. Two patients described slight pain in the sacrococcygeal region without special handling.

Conclusion

ELAPE is applicable to low rectal cancer. Biological mesh reconstruction of perineal defect seems to be safe and effective, with high patient compliance.

Extralevator Abdominal Perineal Excision Versus Standard Abdominal Perineal Excision: Impact on Quality of the Resected Specimen and Postoperative Morbidity

BACKGROUND

Abdominal perineal excision (APE) has been associated with a high risk of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM+) and local recurrence rates in the treatment of rectal cancer. An alternative extralevator approach (ELAPE) has been suggested to improve the quality of resection by avoiding coning of the specimen decreasing the risk of tumor perforation and CRM+. The aim of this study is to compare the quality of the resected specimen and postoperative complication rates between ELAPE and "standard" APE.

METHODS

All patients between 1998 and 2014 undergoing abdominal perineal excision for primary or recurrent rectal cancer at a single Institution were reviewed. Between 1998 and 2008, all patients underwent standard APE. In 2009 ELAPE was introduced at our Institution and all patients requiring APE underwent this alternative procedure (ELAPE). The groups were compared according to pathological characteristics, specimen quality (CRM status, perforation and failure to provide the rectum and anus in a single specimen-fragmentation) and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent standard APEs, while 22 underwent ELAPE. There were no differences in CRM+ (10.6 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.70) or tumor perforation rates (8 vs. 0%; p = 0.30) between APE and ELAPE. However, ELAPE were less likely to result in a fragmented specimen (42 vs. 4%; p = 0.002). Advanced pT-stage was also a risk factor for specimen fragmentation (p = 0.03). There were no differences in severe (Grade 3/4) postoperative morbidity (13 vs. 10%; p = 0.5). Perineal wound dehiscences were less frequent among ELAPE (52 vs 13%; p < 0.01). Despite short follow-up (median 21 mo.), 2-year local recurrence-free survival was better for patients undergoing ELAPE when compared to APE (87 vs. 49%; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

ELAPE may be safely implemented into routine clinical practice with no increase in postoperative morbidity and considerable improvements in the quality of the resected specimen of patients with low rectal cancers.

Standard versus extralevator abdominoperineal excision and oncologic outcomes for patients with distal rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for distal rectal cancer remains controversial, and the procedure is not widely accepted or practiced.

METHODS

An electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and similar databases for articles in English was performed from the inception of the study until October 31, 2017. Two reviewers extracted information and independently assessed the quality of included studies by the methodological index for nonrandomized studies, then data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 software and Stata version 12.0 software.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 17 studies with 3479 patients, of whom 1915 (55.0%) underwent ELAPE and 1564 (44.0%) underwent abdominoperineal excision (APE). Compared with patients undergoing APE, patients undergoing ELAPE had a significant reduced risk of no more than 3 years local recurrence (LR) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08-0.94), 3-year mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.20-0.97), intraoperative bowel perforation (IBP) involvement (RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.31-0.74), and circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.43-1.00) at the threshold level.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of ELAPE is more effective in reducing the chance of 3 years LR, mortality, IBP involvement and CRM positivity than conventional APE, and worthy of being widely applied in surgical treatment of the distal rectal cancer.

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

PURPOSE

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) was introduced to improve outcomes for low-lying locally advanced rectal cancers (LARC) not amenable to sphincter preserving procedures. This study investigates prospectively outcomes of patients operated on with ELAPE compared with a similar cohort of patients operated on with conventional APE.

METHODS

After the exclusion of patients without neoadjuvant therapy, in-hospital mortality, and incomplete metastatectomy, we identified 72 consecutive patients who had undergone either conventional APE (n = 36) or ELAPE (n = 36) for LARC ≤6 cm from the anal verge. The primary outcome measure was local recurrence at 5 years, and secondary outcome measures were cause-specific and overall survival.

RESULTS

Median distance from the anal verge was significantly lower in the ELAPE group (2 vs. 4 cm, p = 0.029). Inadvertent bowel perforation could be completely avoided in the ELAPE group, but amounted to 16.7 % in the conventional APE group (p = 0.025). Cumulative local recurrence rate at 5 years was 18.2 % in the APE group compared to 5.9 % in the ELAPE group (p = 0.153). Local recurrence without distant metastases occurred in 15.5 % in the APE group but was not observed in the ELAPE group (p = 0.039). We did not detect significant differences in cause-specific nor in overall survival.

CONCLUSION

ELAPE results in lower local recurrence rates as compared with conventional APE. We conclude that the extralevator approach should be the procedure of choice for advanced low rectal cancer not amenable to sphincter preserving procedures.

Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision of the Rectum with Primary Suturing: Short-Term Outcomes from Single-Institution Study

AIMS

This study evaluated the safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (laparoscopic-ELAPE) with primary suturing for low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic-ELAPE with primary suturing for low rectal cancer at our institution between September 2013 and January 2015 were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained database. Short-term outcomes, including intraoperative complications, postoperative morbidity, and oncologic adequacy of surgical specimens, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic-ELAPE was successful in all 33 included patients, with no patient requiring conversion to an open approach. Mean operation time was 200 minutes, and mean intraoperative blood loss was 90 mL. Except for bowel perforation in 2 patients (6.1%), there were no intraoperative complications. Two patients (6.1%) had positive circumferential resection margins. Median length of hospital stay was 7 days. The 30-day morbidity and mortality rates were 15.2% and 0%, respectively. Postoperative complications within 30 postoperative days included perineal wound infection (2 patients, 6.1%), respiratory infection (2 patients, 6.1%), and chylous fistula (1 patient, 3.0%). Complications at a median follow-up time of 12 months (range, 3-19 months) included local tumor recurrence (1 patient, 3.0%), perineal dehiscence (2 patients, 6.1%), perineal seroma (1 patient, 3.0%), bowel obstruction (1 patient, 3.0%), urinary retention (2 patients, 6.1%), and chronic perineal pain (2 patients, 6.1%). There were no instances of perineal hernia, persistent sinus, or peristomal hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic-ELAPE with primary suturing appears to be a feasible and safe treatment approach for low rectal cancer, with acceptable short-term outcomes.

Extralevator vs conventional abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term morbidity and long-term oncologic benefits of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) with conventional abdominoperineal resection (CAPR) for patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Electronic search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Korean Journal, and J-EAST database from 2007 until August 2015 was carried out. We considered randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized comparative studies comparing ELAPE with CAPR to be eligible, if they included patients with rectal cancers.

RESULTS

A total of 1 randomized controlled trials and 10 nonrandomized comparative studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 1,736 patients in the ELAPE group and 1,320 in the CAPR group. The ELAPE was associated with a significantly lower intraoperative perforation rate. There were no differences regarding the circumferential margin involvement, R0 resections, and local recurrence rate. There was less blood loss in ELAPE patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The ELAPE significantly lowered the intraoperative perforation rate, with no benefits regarding circumferential resection margin involvement and local recurrence rate.

Sparing Sphincters and Laparoscopic Resection Improve Survival by Optimizing the Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer Patients

The goal of rectal cancer treatment is to minimize the local recurrence rate and extend the disease-free survival period and survival. For this aim, obtainment of negative circumferential radial margin (CRM) plays an important role. This study evaluated predictive factors for positive CRM status and its effect on patient survival in mid- and distal rectal tumors.Patients who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer were included. The main factors were demographic data, tumor location, surgical technique, neoadjuvant therapy, tumor diameter, tumor depth, lymph node metastasis, mesorectal integrity, CRM, the rate of local recurrence, distant metastasis, and overall and disease-free survival. Statistical analyses were performed by using the Chi-squared test, Fisher exact test, Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test and the Mantel-Cox log-rank sum test.A total of 420 patients were included, 232 (55%) of whom were male. We observed no significant differences in patient characteristics or surgical treatment between the patients who had positive CRM and who had negative CRM, but a higher positive CRM rate was observed in patients undergone abdominoperineal resection (APR) (P < 0.001). Advanced T-stage (P < 0.001), lymph node invasion (P = 0.001) and incomplete mesorectum (P = 0.007) were encountered significantly more often in patients with positive CRM status. Logistic regression analysis revealed that APR (P < 0.001) and open resection (P = 0.046) were independent predictors of positive CRM status. Moreover, positive CRM was associated with decreased 5-year overall and disease-free survival (P = 0.002 and P = 0.004, respectively).This large single-institution series demonstrated that APR and open resection were independent predictive factors for positive CRM status in rectal cancer. Positive CRM independently decreased the 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates.

Laparoscopic translevator approach to abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma: feasibility and short-term oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

The extra-levator approach to abdominal perineal resection (APR) was developed in order to reduce the rates of positive circumferential resection margin. This approach, however, is associated with significant morbidity. We postulate that a less radical resection of the levators done laparoscopically could significantly decrease the rate of perineal complications while ensuring an oncologically adequate specimen. To date, to our knowledge, there are no reports in the literature describing a laparoscopic translevator approach for APR. The purpose of this study is to describe our initial experience with this approach and assess our short-term oncologic and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent laparoscopic APR with intra-abdominal levator transection for rectal cancer from 2012 to 2014 at a single tertiary care institution. Main outcome measures include: perineal flap rates, post-operative complications, length of stay, distance from tumour to circumferential resection margin, R0 status, and disease recurrence. Data are presented as median (interquartile range) unless otherwise noted.

RESULTS

Seventeen cases were identified. Patient age was 61 (range 34-75), and 59 % were male. Pre-operative distance of the tumour from the anal verge was 2.6 cm (0.4-3.9). Post-operative length of stay was 4 (4-6) days. One patient required a perineal flap for reconstruction. Four patients (22 %) had perineal complications (three wound infections and one hernia). No patients reported sexual dysfunction, and one (5 %) developed urinary retention. Five (29 %) patients had a complete pathological response. The circumferential resection margin was 1.5 (0.8-2.5) cm, with no positive margins reported. The number of retrieved lymph nodes was 12 (range 2-30). Follow-up was 9.7 months (range 20 days-23 months), during which one patient developed recurrent disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes a novel surgical approach to APR that has the potential to both decrease perineal complications and provide excellent oncologic results.