Controversies in abdominoperineal excision

A short-term study of laparoscopic-dominant individualised levator ani resection in abdominoperineal resection: A retrospective investigation

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to investigate if laparoscopic-dominant abdominoperineal resection (LDAPR) with individualised levator ani resection inhibits local recurrence (LR) and prolongs survival as compared to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rectal cancer surgery cases were retrospectively identified from September 2014 to December 2019. LDAPR-treated group (55 patients) and the APR-treated group (71 patients) were included in the study. The operation time, circumferential resection margin (CRM), intraoperative tumor surgery (ITP), post-operative complications, the 2-year overall survival (OS) and LR were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

The CRM and ITP were significantly reduced in the LDAPR as compared to the APR group (3.6% vs. 16.9%, t = 5.522, P = 0.019; 3.6% vs. 14.1%, t = 3.926, P = 0.048). In terms of post-operative complications, the incidence of urinary retention in LDAPR was significantly reduced than the APR group (10.9% vs. 25.4%, χ2 = 4.139, P = 0.041). Similarly, perineal pain at 6 months or 1 year after surgery was significantly down-regulated in LDAPR than in the APR group (72.7% vs. 88.7%, χ2 = 5.320, P = 0.021; 18.2% vs. 43.2%, χ2 = 8.288, P = 0.004). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the post-operative complications between the LDAPR and APR groups. Finally, LDAPR led to a significantly improved 2-year OS and a reduced LR compared to APR.

CONCLUSION

LDAPR reduces CMR, ITP and LR and simplified the perineum operation, subsequently protecting the pelvic autonomic nerves. Compared to the conventional APR, LDAPR is a promising procedure worth adopting for rectal cancer treatment.

A National Survey on Perineal Reconstruction Following Standard and Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision: Current Practices and Trends in the UK

Background

Challenging perineal defects resulting from extralevator (ELAPE) and standard abdominoperineal excision (APE) have given rise to an emerging multidisciplinary approach between colorectal and plastic surgeons. At present, there is a relative paucity of evidence on best practice. This study sought to assess current national practice concerning perineal reconstruction following APE/ELAPE in the United Kingdom (UK) and to determine the factors involved in reconstruction choice.

Methodology

An anonymised survey was circulated to consultant plastic surgeons at all 48 UK centres performing perineal reconstruction following APE/ELAPE. Responses were collected between October 2021 and April 2022.

Results

Complete responses were received from 24 units nationally. All units had a dedicated APE/ELAPE service. Overall, 70% adopted a standardised reconstructive approach, the most common being the inferior gluteal artery perforator flap (n = 11). Significant variation was identified in the reconstructive technique. Similar differences were observed in the perceived importance of surgical factors guiding the reconstructive decision-making process, the top priorities being the size of the defect and previous radiotherapy.

Conclusions

The variability of responses suggests a lack of national consensus on optimal reconstruction following APE/ELAPE, despite the majority of centres employing a standardised approach to reconstruction. Our study highlights important surgical decision-making factors and provides valuable insight to aid in developing national collaborative evidence-based guidelines on best practice.

Short-term advantages of ELAPE over APR

INTRODUCTION

Conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR) has a high rate of local recurrence. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) can potentially diminish the rate of intraoperative tumour perforation (IOTP) and can provide wider circumferential resection margins (CRM) but at the price of higher perineal complication rate. The aim of our study was to compare the short term results of conventional APR to ELAPE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-five consecutively operated APRs compared to 38 also consecutively operated ELAPEs. Prospectively collected short-term outcome data were analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

There was no difference in demographics, disease stage or tumour location between groups. IOTP rate and CRM positivity rates were similar between the two groups (p = .608). No difference was found in major (Clavien-Dindo III-V) complications, but we found statistically significant difference in minor (Clavien-Dindo I-II) complications (p = .01) in favour of the ELAPE group. Frequency of perineal SSI was lower in ELAPE group, but the difference was not significant (p = .320). Intraoperative iatrogenic complications occurred at significantly lower rate in ELAPE group (p = .035). Also, postoperative morbidity connected with the dissection in the perineal phase (e.g. urine incontinence, urinary retention) was significantly lower (p = .018) after ELAPE.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In our experience ELAPE operations may diminish the rate of Clavien-Dindo I-II complications compared to conventional APR. This effect is ensuing from the decrease of intraoperative iatrogenic complications and from the decrease of minor postoperative complications.

Perineal Turn over Perforator Flap: A Novel Surgical Technique for Combined Perineal and Posterior Vaginal Wall Reconstruction

Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision (ELAPE) and Abdominoperineal Resection create complex perineal defects made more challenging when combined with additional resection of the posterior vaginal wall. This composite defect requires the restoration of a functional vagina, in addition to the obliteration of the large perineal dead space, a need to reduce donor site, and perineal wound morbidity. Previously described fasciocutaneous and myocutaneous flaps for such defects are associated with long operations requiring intra-operative mobilization and are linked to post-operative complications including herniation, evisceration, flap loss, donor site morbidity and poor cosmetic outcome, amongst other issues. Herein we describe the case of a 60-year-old female patient that underwent combined ELAPE and posterior vaginectomy for anal squamous cell carcinoma. This complex defect was reconstructed using an extended version of the Perineal Turn-Over (PTO) flap based on the Internal Pudendal artery perforator.

The internal pudendal artery turnover (IPAT) flap: A new, simple and reliable technique for perineal reconstruction

Perineal defects can be a reconstructive challenge following abdomino-perineal excision of the rectum, pelvic exenteration or the excision of severe pilonidal disease. These defects often involve large perineal cavities and pelvic dead space with often poorly mobile soft tissues due to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Because of the inherent challenges of wound healing in the perineal region, well vascularised and robust reconstruction is mandated. In this paper, we describe a novel perforator-based turnover flap for perineal reconstruction - the internal pudendal artery turnover flap (IPAT flap). The flap requires no visualisation or dissection of perforating vessels, has a reliable vasculature, is quick and straightforward to perform and allows for the effective reconstruction of deep three-dimensional defects following perineal excisions. This is a retrospective study. A cohort of 38 consecutive patients who underwent various reconstructions with the IPAT flap under a single surgeon were included between 2012 and 2019. At three months, 37 flaps were fully healed. There were no flap failures or partial flap losses. Complications were seen in 10 of 38 patients with nine of these being minor and one that requires a return to the theatre for washout secondary to a urinary leak. The Internal Pudendal Artery Turn Over Flap allows us to reconstruct three-dimensional defects following perineal surgery, achieving more significant mobilisation of the flap to fill deep dead space without the added complexity and additional operative time associated with perforator dissection. The IPAT flap can be used in several common perineal reconstructive challenges expeditiously - often at the end of lengthy oncological resections - with minimal donor site morbidity, and in our experience, yields reliable outcomes.

Avoiding urethral and rectal injury during transperineal abdominoperineal resection in male patients with anorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

In abdominoperineal resection (APR) in male patients with rectal cancer, high margin involvement and urethral injury have been reported to result from difficulty in dissecting the anterior anorectum. Recently, the efficacy of an endoscopic down-to-up rectal dissection was reported. Here, we present a safe and simple technique for anterior dissection using a simultaneous laparoscopic and transperineal endoscopic approach.

METHODS

We perform transperineal APR (TpAPR) using both the laparoscopic and transperineal approach (a 2-team approach). Anterior dissection commences just behind the superficial transverse perineal muscle. Next, the striated muscle complex surrounding the rectum (levator ani and puborectalis muscle) is divided. At this point, it is difficult to identify the dissection plane between the membranous urethra and anterior rectum; thus, dissection along the lateral aspect of neurovascular bundle from the lateral to anterior side with the assistance of the laparoscopic team is helpful in identifying the posterior surface of the prostate. Once the prostate is identified, it is relatively easy to divide the rectourethralis muscles. The key steps of our procedure are shown in the video.

RESULTS

Between April 2016 and July 2019, we performed 14 TpAPR procedures in male patients with rectal cancer without distant metastasis. Extended surgery was performed in 8 patients, including pelvic sidewall dissection and combined resection of adjacent organs. Median operative time was 453 min and median blood loss was 46 g. There was 1 (7.1%) circumferential-positive case, but no cases of urethral injury or rectal perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-team TpAPR procedure is beneficial for appropriate dissection of the anterior side during APR surgery.

Trans-perineal minimally invasive approach during extralevator abdominoperineal excision for advanced low rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study is to evaluate trans-perineal minimally invasive approach for extralevator abdominoperineal excision (TP-ELAPE) in a synchronous lithotomy position for locally advanced low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between May 2013 and February 2016, 14 patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer underwent TP-ELAPE for the perineal phase of extralevator abdominoperineal excision, and 18 patients underwent conventional ELAPE.

RESULTS

There was no positive circumferential resection margin in both groups. Patients who received TP-ELAPE had similar bowel perforation rate (7.1% vs. 5.6%, p = 1.000), longer transperineal operative time (100 vs. 40 min, p < 0.001) and higher surgical difficulty visual analog scale (VAS) scores (6 vs. 2, p < 0.001), while had shorter total procedure time (215 vs. 260 min, p = 0.015), lower VAS pain scores on day 1 postoperatively (5 vs. 6.5, p = 0.049), shorter postoperative anus exhausting time (22 h vs 28 h, p = 0.006), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (11.5 d vs 13.5d, p = 0.028) compared with patients who received conventional ELAPE. There was no local recurrence with median follow-up time of 53 months in the TP-ELAPE group and 51 months in the conventional ELAPE group. There were no differences for disease-free survival (p = 0.835) and overall survival (p = 0.829) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TP-ELAPE approach in the synchronous lithotomy position might be a feasible approach for low rectal cancer, while ensuring a radical and safe surgical procedure.

Perineal Wound Complications After Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction of the pelvic floor defect caused by extralevator abdominoperineal excision poses a challenge for the surgeon.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term perineal wound complications in patients undergoing conventional primary closure versus biological mesh-assisted repair after extralevator abdominoperineal excision.

DESIGN

This was a single-institution retrospective observational study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a tertiary academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Patients with low advanced rectal cancer undergoing extralevator abdominoperineal excision from August 2008 to December 2016 (N = 228) were included.

INTERVENTIONS

All of the patients received extralevator abdominoperineal excision operation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was perineal wound complications after the operation.

RESULTS

Of the 228 patients who underwent extralevator abdominoperineal excision, 174 received biological mesh repair and 54 received primary closure. Preoperative radiotherapy was administered to 89 patients (51.1%) in the biological mesh group and 20 patients (37.0%) in the primary closure group. The biological mesh group had significantly lower rates of perineal wound infection (11.5% vs 22.2%; p = 0.047), perineal hernia (3.4% vs 13.0%; p = 0.022), wound dehiscence (0.6% vs 5.6%; p = 0.042), and total perineal wound complications (14.9% vs 35.2%; p = 0.001) compared with the primary closure group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed preoperative radiotherapy (p < 0.001), conventional primary closure (p < 0.001), and intraoperative bowel perforation (p= 0.001) to be significantly associated with perineal procedure-related complications.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Although perineal wound repair with biological mesh prolongs the operative time of perineal portion, the perineal drainage retention time, and the length of hospital stay, it may reduce perineal procedure-related complications and improve wound healing. Preoperative radiotherapy and intraoperative bowel perforation appear to be independent predictors of perineal complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B42. COMPLICACIONES DE LA HERIDA PERINEAL DESPUÉS DE LA EXCISIÓN ABDOMINOPERINEAL EXTRA-ELEVADORA EN CASO DE CÁNCER DE RECTO BAJO: La reconstrucción del defecto en el suelo pélvico, resultado de una resección abdominoperineal extra-elevadora plantea un desafío para el cirujano.El analisis de las complicaciones de la herida perineal a largo plazo en pacientes sometidos a un cierre primario convencional versus una reparación asistida por malla biológica después de una resección abdominoperineal extra-elevadora.Estudio retrospectivo observacional en una sola institución.Investigación realizada en un centro médico académico terciario.Se incluyeron los pacientes con cáncer rectal bajo avanzado que se sometieron a una resección abdominoperineal extra-elevadora desde agosto de 2008 hasta diciembre de 2016 (n= 228).Todos aquellos pacientes que fueron sometidos a una resección abdominoperineal extra-elevadora.Todas las complicaciones de la herida perineal en el postoperatorio.De los 228 pacientes que se sometieron a una resección abdominoperineal extra-elevadora, 174 fueron reparados con una malla biológica y 54 se beneficiaron de un cierre primario. La radioterapia preoperatoria se administró a 89 (51,1%) pacientes en el grupo de malla biológica y 20 (37,0%) pacientes en el grupo de cierre primario. El grupo de malla biológica tuvo tasas significativamente más bajas de infección de la herida perineal (11.5% vs. 22.2%; p = 0.047), hernia perineal (3.4% vs. 13.0%; p = 0.022), dehiscencia de la herida (0.6% vs. 5.6%; p = 0,042) y complicaciones perineales de la herida (14,9% frente a 35,2%; p = 0,001) en comparación con el grupo de cierre primario. El análisis de regresión logística multivariable mostró que la radioterapia preoperatoria (p <0.001), el cierre primario convencional (p <0.001) y la perforación intestinal intra-operatoria (p = 0.001) se asociaron significativamente como complicaciones relacionadas con el procedimiento perineal.Estudio retrospectivo de centro único.Aunque la reparación de la herida perineal con malla biológica prolonga el tiempo perineal de la operación, la presencia y duración del drenaje perineal y la hospitalización pueden reducir las complicaciones relacionadas con el procedimiento perineal y mejorar la cicatrización de la herida. La radioterapia preoperatoria y la perforación intestinal intra-operatorias parecen ser predictores independientes de complicaciones perineales. Vea el Resumen del Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B42.

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.

The Perineal Turnover Perforator Flap: A New and Simple Technique for Perineal Reconstruction After Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) is increasingly used to treat locally advanced low rectal cancer as it has been related to superior oncological outcomes than traditional abdominoperineal excision.However, ELAPE also has been associated with high perineal wound morbidity rates as it creates a larger perineal cavity than standard abdominoperineal excision. This greater defect, along with the effects of preoperative chemoradiation on wound healing, makes uneventful perineal reconstruction post-ELAPE a real challenge for the plastic surgeon.In this paper, the authors present a new technique for perineal reconstruction post-ELAPE, using a perforator, islanded, turnover, de-epithelialized local flap (perineal turnover perforator [PTO] flap).

METHODS

The PTO flap is raised based on perforators from internal pudendal artery. The flap is based on the concept that thick gluteal dermis can act as an "autologous dermal vascularized" substitute for the excised pelvic floor muscles, whereas the bulk of its subcutaneous tissue is used to obliterate dead space.Fourteen patients underwent perineal reconstruction using this approach. Patients' demographics, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, histopathology, duration of surgery, follow-up, and complications were analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Median operating time was 49 minutes. There were no flap, donor site, or major wound complications. One patient had superficial skin dehiscence, and one patient developed perineal hernia. None of the patients developed chronic perineal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The PTO flap is a quick, simple yet safe and reliable option for perineal reconstruction after ELAPE that offers many advantages over the heretofore used reconstructive techniques including primary closure, myocutaneous flaps, and biological meshes.

Transanal TME: new standard or fad?

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has been developed to overcome the difficulty of laparoscopic dissection and transection in the deep pelvis. TaTME has several clinical benefits over laparoscopic surgery, such as better exposure of the distal rectum and direct determination of distal resection margin. Although evidence demonstrating the true benefits of taTME over laparoscopic TME (LapTME) is still insufficient, accumulating data have revealed that, as compared with LapTME, taTME is associated with shorter operative time and a lower conversion rate without jeopardizing other short-term outcomes. However, taTME is a technically demanding procedure with specific complications such as urethral injury, and so sufficient experience of LapTME and step-by-step acquisition of the skills needed for this procedure are requisite. The role of transanal endoscopic surgery is expected to change, along with the recent progress in the treatment of rectal cancer, such as robotic surgery and the watch-and-wait strategy. Optimization of treatment will be needed in the future in terms not only of oncological but also of functional outcomes.

Simultaneous stoma reinforcement and perineal reconstruction with biological mesh - A multicentre prospective observational study

Introduction

The optimal method for perineal reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (elAPE) for low rectal cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to assess whether simultaneous perineal reconstruction and parastomal reinforcement with Strattice™ Reconstructive Tissue Matrix after elAPE could prevent hernia formation.

Methods

In this prospective, multicentre, observational, non-comparative study of consecutive patients undergoing elAPE for low rectal cancer underwent simultaneous perineal reconstruction and colostomy site reinforcement with Strattice™ mesh. All patients underwent long course chemoradiotherapy prior to surgery and had excision of the coccyx. Patients were assessed for perineal wound healing at 7 day, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, perineal and parastomal hernia defects on clinical and radiological assessment at 1 year following surgery.

Results

19 patients (median age = 67 years, median BMI = 26, M:F = 11:8) were entered the study. 10 (52.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic elAPE. The median length of post-operative stay was 9 days. Complete wound healing was observed for 8(42%) patients at 1 month, 12(63%) at 3 months, and 19(100%) patients at 12 months. Median time for radiological and clinical assessment for hernias was 12 months. No perineal hernia was detected in 17 patients following CT assessment. Dynamic MRI was undertaken in 11 patients at 12 months and all showed no evidence of perineal hernia. 3 (16%) patients had a parastomal hernia detected radiologically. No mesh was removed during the 12 months follow up period.

Conclusion

Perineal and parastomal reconstruction with biological mesh is a feasible approach for parastomal and perineal hernia prevention after laparoscopic and open elAPE.

•

In this case series, consecutive patients underwent simultaneous perineal reconstruction and colostomy site reinforcement with Strattice™ biological mesh.

•

Simultaneous perineal and parastomal reconstruction with Strattice™ mesh is an effective method of hernia prevention after elAPE.

•

High quality prospective RCTs and national/international collaborative audits are required to compare this technique with others for perineal reconstruction.

Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid-Rectal Cancer Without Anastomosis: Low Hartmann’s Operation or Intersphincteric Abdomino-Perineal Excision?

Background and Aims:

In mid-rectal cancer, the low colorectal anastomosis is, although feasible, sometimes avoided. The aim was to compare low Hartmann’s procedure with intersphincteric abdomino-perineal excision of the rectum, in patients operated with total mesorectal excision for mid-rectal cancer in whom the low anastomosis was technically feasible but for patient-related reasons undesired.

Material and Methods:

A total of 64 consecutive patients with mid-rectal cancer who underwent low Hartmann’s procedure (n = 34) or intersphincteric abdomino-perineal excision (n = 30) at one colorectal unit were compared regarding patient demography, short-term oncology, surgical outcome at 3 and 24 months, and long-term overall survival.

Results:

There were no significant differences between intersphincteric abdomino-perineal excision and Hartmann’s procedure regarding age, gender distribution, body mass index, preoperative radiotherapy, tumor level, or cancer stages. Operation time was shorter in Hartmann’s procedure as compared with intersphincteric abdomino-perineal excision, median 174 and 256 min, (P < 0.001), and intraoperative blood loss was increased, 600 and 500 mL, respectively (P = 0.045). Number of lymph nodes and circumferential resection margin were comparable. In Hartmann’s procedure compared with intersphincteric abdomino-perineal excision, the need for reoperation was 24% and 3%, (P = 0.020), complications classified as Clavien–Dindo 3–4 occurred in 32% and 10%, (P = 0.031), pelvic abscess in 21% and 10%, (P = 0.313), and mortality within 90 days was 3% and 0%, respectively, (P = 0.938). In intersphincteric abdomino-perineal excision, the perineal wound was not healed at 3 months in 13%, and in Hartmann’s procedure 15% had chronic secretion from the anorectal remnant at 2 years postoperatively.

Conclusion:

The results from this study suggest that intersphincteric abdomino-perineal excision might be an alternative to Hartmann’s procedure in patients with mid-rectal cancer, in whom a low colorectal anastomosis is undesired.

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.

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.

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.

A pilot randomized study comparing extralevator with conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation

AIM

The aims of this study were to assess the feasibility of performing an extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT), to compare the rates of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and intra-operative perforation (IOP) of the specimen, and to assess the amount of tissue removed around the muscularis propria (MP)/internal sphincter (IS) of the lower rectum in patients with low rectal cancer undergoing ELAPE compared with conventional abdominoperineal excision (CAPE) after NCRT.

METHOD

This was an open-label, parallel-arm pilot randomized trial conducted in India. Twenty patients were randomized to one of the study arms. The surgical specimens were fixed, serially cross-sectioned and photographed. Using specialized morphometry software, the amount of tissue resected with each operation was measured.

RESULTS

There was a nonsignificant trend towards more IOPs (30% vs 0%, P = 0.06) and a higher CRM involvement rate (40% vs 20%, P = 0.32) in the CAPE arm. ELAPE removed a significantly greater amount of tissue around the IS/MP when compared with CAPE (mean ± SD: 1911.39 ± 382 mm² vs 1132.03 ± 371 mm² , P < 0.001). The mean distance from the IS/MP to the CRM was significantly greater in the ELAPE arm both in the posterior (mean ± SD: 28.28 ± 3 mm vs 9.63 ± 3 mm, P < 0.001) and lateral (mean ± SD: 13.69 ± 3 mm vs 9.72 ± 3 mm, P = 0.009) parts of the rectum but not in the anterior part (mean ± SD: 6.74 ± 2 mm vs 6.10 ± 4 mm, P = 0.64). The short-term morbidity was not significantly different between the two procedures.

CONCLUSION

ELAPE removed more tissue in the lower rectum and resulted in a lower rate of IOP and CRM involvement when compared with CAPE, even after NCRT.

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal excision with trans-abdominal individualized levator transection: interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPR) is challenging 'conventional' abdominoperineal excision (APR), yet the safety and efficacy of ELAPR is still under debate. We therefore developed a laparoscopic APR with trans-abdominal individualized levator transection (LAPR-TILT) approach and compared the outcome with a conventional laparoscopic APR (CLAPR).

METHOD

All eligible patients were entered a single-centre randomized controlled trial to compare CLAPR and LAPR-TILT. We assessed the first 185 patients, including operative findings, complications, histopathology and urogenital function.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients in the CLAPR group and 92 patients in the APR-TILT group were included for analysis. The APR-TILT procedure took less time [137 (101-175) min vs 146 (102-187) min; P = 0.03], mainly owing to faster perineal dissection. APR-TILT resulted in a reduced rate of bowel perforation (1.1% vs 8.6%; P = 0.04), circumferential resection margin positivity (1.1% vs 10.8%; P = 0.01) and postoperative wound complications (5.4% vs 16.2%; P = 0.02) compared with the CLAPR procedure. At a median follow-up of 19 months after surgery, three patients (3.2%) in the CLAPR group had tumour recurrence while no tumour recurrence occurred in the LAPR-TILT group. Patients who underwent LAPR-TILT reported fewer urinary or sexual problems (LAPR-TILT vs CLAPR, 10.9% vs 24.7% and 17.4% vs 38.7%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Compared with CLAPR, LAPR-TILT achieved better pathological results for factors that are surrogate parameters for local recurrence. LAPR-TILT could also reduce the risk of urogenital dysfunction.

[Spincter preservation after selective chemoradiotherapy of rectal cancer. Interim results of the OCUM study]

BACKGROUND

In a prospective multicenter observational study (OCUM) neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nRCT) was selectively administered depending on the risk of local recurrence and based on the distance between tumor and mesorectal fascia in pretherapeutic high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

OBJECTIVE

Frequency and quality of abdominoperineal excision (APE) and sphincter preserving operations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Of 642 patients treated in 13 hospitals 389 received surgery alone and 253 nRCT followed by surgery. By univariate and multivariate analysis risk factors for APE were determined. Quality parameters were the quality grade of mesorectal excision, the pathohistological involvement of the circumferential resection margin and intraoperative local dissemination of tumor cells.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In 12.8 % of the patients APE was performed. Independent risk factors for APE were tumor location in the lower third of the rectum and the individual hospitals, where APE varied between 0 and 32 %. This variation was chiefly caused by the different case mix. Hospitals with a high APE rate (> 30 %) treated significantly more patients with very low lying carcinomas (< 3 cm above the anal verge) and more advanced tumors. The median height of the tumor in cases of APE was nearly equal in all participating hospitals. Independent on the number of cases the quality of rectal surgery was high. Within the patient groups of primary surgery and nRCT the oncological quality parameter did not significantly differ between sphincter preservation and APE. As far as sphincter preservation is concerned the results justify a selective application of nRCT in patients with rectal carcinoma. The long-term results still have to be awaited.

Suboptimal surgery and omission of neoadjuvant therapy for upper rectal cancer is associated with a high risk of local recurrence

AIM

The aim of the present study was to estimate the risk of local recurrence in an audited cohort of patients, with a particular focus on patients with upper rectal cancer treated by partial mesorectal excision without neoadjuvant therapy.

METHOD

Perioperative clinical data on all patients who underwent mesorectal excision for primary adenocarcinoma of the rectum in the period from 2007 to 2010 were prospectively collected and follow-up data on oncological outcome were retrieved from patient records. Three-year actuarial local recurrence rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

Local recurrence was diagnosed in 17 of 247 patients treated with curative intent. The 3-year actuarial local recurrence rate was 7.0% (95% CI 4.0-11.8). The risk of local recurrence was negatively associated with tumour stage (P = 0.015), an involved circumferential resection margin (P = 0.007) and tumour height (P = 0.044). The local recurrence rate at 3 years was 13.5% after partial mesorectal excision, 2.9% following total mesorectal excision and 5.7% after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (P = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Tumour stage and an involved circumferential resection margin were the most important predictors of local recurrence. For cancer of the upper rectum, partial mesorectal excision was associated with a high risk of local recurrence.

Prospective controlled study of the safety and oncological outcomes of ELAPE procure with definitive anatomic landmarks versus conventional APE for lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of extra-levator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) procedure for lower rectal cancer is controversial. It is unclear whether the ELAPE procedure could improve surgical safety and lead to better oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Sixty-nine lower rectal cancer patients who underwent ELAPE (36 cases) or conventional abdominoperineal resection (APE; 33 cases) between June 2011 and February 2013 were prospectively investigated. Clinicopathological variables including blood loss, intraoperative perforation (IOP) rate, circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, lymph node harvest, the postoperative complications, urinary and sexual function, quality of life (QOL), local recurrence rate and survival were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

Blood loss (P = 0.021), perineal wound complication (P = 0.039), IOP rate (P = 0.028), local recurrence (P = 0.034) were significantly less frequent in the ELAPE group. There was greater CRM involvement in the conventional APE group but no statistical difference between the two groups. Urinary function, sexual function and QOL were not significantly different between the two groups. Overall survival and progression-free survival were not significantly different between two groups, even when survival was analyzed according to TNM stage, T stage, N stage, and with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In patients who underwent ELAPE there was no statistical difference in postoperative complications between younger and elderly patients (age ≥60).

CONCLUSIONS

ELAPE procedure with definitive anatomic landmarks demonstrated surgical safety and decreased local recurrence for lower rectal cancer patients including the elderly, but there were no survival improvements in compared to conventional APE procedure.

A prospective multicenter clinical study of extralevator abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that extralevator abdominoperineal resection has the potential for reduced circumferential resection margin involvement, intraoperative bowl perforation, and local recurrence rates; however, it has been suggested that extended resection may be associated with increased morbidity because of the formation of a larger perineal defect.

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to demonstrate the feasibility and complications of extralevator abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced low rectal cancer in China.

DESIGN

This was a prospective cohort study.

SETTING

The study was conducted at 7 university hospitals throughout China.

PATIENTS

A total of 102 patients underwent this procedure for primary locally advanced low rectal cancer between August 2008 and October 2011.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures comprised circumferential resection margin involvement, intraoperative perforation, postoperative complications, and local recurrence.

RESULTS

The most common complications included sexual dysfunction (40.5%), perineal complications (23.5%), urinary retention (18.6%), and chronic perineal pain (13.7%). Chronic perineal pain was associated with coccygectomy (p < 0.001), and the pain gradually eased over time. Reconstruction of the pelvic floor with biological mesh was associated with a lower rate of perineal dehiscence (p = 0.006) and overall perineal wound complications (p = 0.02) in comparison with primary closure. A positive circumferential margin was demonstrated in 6 (5.9%) patients, and intraoperative perforations occurred in 4 (3.9%) patients. All circumferential margin involvements and intraoperative perforations were located anteriorly. The local recurrence was 4.9% at a median follow-up of 44 months (range, 18-68 months).

LIMITATIONS

This was a nonrandomized, uncontrolled study.

CONCLUSIONS

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection performed in the prone position for low rectal cancer is a relatively safe approach with acceptable circumferential resection margin involvement, intraoperative perforations, and local recurrences. Reconstruction of the pelvic floor with biological mesh might lower the rate of perineal wound complications (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A161).