Is there still a place for abdominoperineal resection of the rectum?

Comparison of outcomes of abdominoperineal resection vs low anterior resection in very-low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The management of very-low rectal cancer is one of the most challenging issues faced by general and colorectal surgeons. Many feel compelled to pursue abdominoperineal resection (APR) over low anterior resection (LAR) to optimize oncologic outcomes. This study aimed to determine differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer.

METHODS

The United States Rectal Cancer Consortium (2010-2016) was queried for adults who underwent either APR or LAR for stage I-III rectal cancers < 5 cm from anorectal junction and met inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, length of stay, complications, recurrence location, and perioperative factors.

RESULTS

A total of 431 patients with very-low rectal cancer who underwent APR or LAR were identified; 154 (35.7%) underwent APR. The overall recurrence rate was 19.6%. The median follow-up was 42.5 months. An analysis adjusted for demographics and pathologic stage observed no difference in disease-free survival between operative types (APR-hazard ratio [HR] = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.53-1.52, P = .70). Secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant difference between operation types, including overall survival (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.71-2.32, P = .39), complications (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.94-2.50, P = .12), or length of stay (estimate: 0.04, SE = 0.25, P = .54).

CONCLUSION

We observed no significant difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer. This analysis supports the treatment of very-low rectal cancer, without sphincter involvement, by either APR or LAR.

Effect of laparoscopic versus open surgery on postoperative wound complications in patients with low rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of microinvasive and open operations on postoperative wound complications in low rectal carcinoma patients. Research on limited English has been conducted systematically in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The date up to the search was in August 2023. Following review of the classification and exclusion criteria for this research and the evaluation of its quality in the literature, there were a total of 266 related papers, which were reviewed for inclusion in the period from 2004 to 2017. A total of 1774 cases of low rectal cancer were enrolled. Of these 913 cases, the laparoscopic operation was performed on 913 cases, while 861 cases were operated on low rectal carcinoma. The overall sample was between 10 and 482. Five trials described the efficacy of laparoscopy have lower risk than open on postoperative wound infection in patients with low rectal cancer (OR, 0.72;95 % CI, 0.48,1.09 p = 0.12). Three studies results showed that the anastomotic leak was not significantly different between open and laparoscopy (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58,1.26 p = 0.44). Six surgical trials in low rectal cancer patients reported haemorrhage, and five cases of surgical time were reported, with laparoscopy having fewer bleeding compared with open surgery (MD, -188.89; 95% CI, -341.27, -36.51 p = 0.02). Compared with laparoscopy, the operation time was shorter for the open operation (MD, 33.06; 95% CI, 30.56, 35.57 p < 0.0001). Overall, there is no significant difference between laparoscopy and open surgery in terms of incidence of infection and anastomosis leak. However, the rate of haemorrhage in laparoscopy is lower，and operation time in open surgery is lower.

Perioperative outcomes after ultra low anterior resection in the era of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

Data on perioperative outcomes of sphincter preserving ultra low anterior resections (ULAR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NA-CTRT) is sparsely reported in literature.

METHODS

Prospective data of 68 patients was reviewed retrospectively. Patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CTRT, Group A, n = 45) were compared with those who were operated upfront (Group B, n = 23).

RESULTS

Overall, mean distance of the tumor from anal verge was 5.1 cm (range 3-8). In Groups A and B, it was 5.2 and 5.1 cm, respectively. In Group A, 3 patients had complete response, 40 had partial response and 2 had progressive disease. Overall, the mean distance of the anastomosis performed from the anal verge was 2.8 cm (range 1-4). In Groups A and B, it was 2.7 and 2.9 cm, respectively (NS). Mean blood loss in Groups A and B was 510.5 (range 200-2,200) and 345 mL (range 50-800), respectively (p = 0.037). Two patients in Group A required blood transfusion (range 1-2) compared to none in Group B. The overall complication rate was 26.5 % (18/68); in Groups A and B, it was 22.2 % and 34.8 %, respectively. There was no postoperative mortality. Postoperative stay for Groups A and B was 8 and 9.5 days (p = 0.009), respectively. In Group A, 23/45 patients, earlier planned for abdominoperineal resection, ultimately received sphincter-preserving ULAR.

CONCLUSION

ULAR can be performed safely without added morbidity or mortality after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. In some cases, earlier deemed to be suitable for APR, the neoadjuvant approach improved chances of sphincter conservation.

Quality of care in rectal cancer surgery. Exploring influencing factors in the West of Scotland

AIM

To assess variability in the proportions of types of major resection for rectal cancer throughout the west of Scotland (WoS) and ascertain factors explaining the variability.

METHOD

Retrospective cohort study of a regional population clinical audit database. This was linked to cancer registrations and death certificates in order that outcome analyses could be derived. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were used to explore determinants of survival.

RESULTS

A total of 1574 patients met the inclusion criteria. The age range was from 22 to 97 years. The mean age was 67, median age 68 and the standard deviation was 11.5. The majority of patients (61%) were male. Unlike previous series, male patients and those with poorer socioeconomic circumstances (SEC) were no more likely to receive an abdominoperineal excision (APE) procedure for rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Variation exists in the west of Scotland regarding surgical treatment for rectal cancer. We found no difference in the type of procedure offered according to sex, intent of operation or socioeconomic circumstances with reference to APE and anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer. We conclude therefore that our region provides an equitable service on grounds of sex and SEC. This demonstrates that an equitable surgical service has been provided for those suffering from rectal cancer. Circumferential margin positivity was four times more likely in an APE than an AR for rectal cancer. This is not explained by age, stage, sex, socioeconomic circumstances (SEC), volume of surgery, intent of operation, type of admission or year of incidence.

Have French recommendations had an impact on the treatment and survival of middle and lower rectal cancer patients?

OBJECTIVE

Compare the survival of middle and lower rectal cancer (MLRC) patients before and after the 1994 issue of rectal cancer (RC) consensus conference recommendations.

METHODS

Cases of MLRC noted in the Hérault department of France in 1992 (n=58) and 2000 (n=93) yielded exhaustive epidemiological, clinical-pathological and treatment data that were used to compare MLRC patient management and survival in these two periods.

RESULTS

Significantly more lymph nodes (≥ 8) were harvested in 2000 (≥ 8, 47%) than in 1992. In all, 45 patients (77.6%) received radiotherapy in 1992, and 74 (82%) in 2000. Chemotherapy was employed in 15 patients (25.9%) in 1992 and in 39 patients (43%) in 2000. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, together with sphincter conservation, were dependent upon the year. Overall 5-year relative survival for rectal cancer in the Hérault department did not vary between 1992 (56%) and 2000 (56%). Independent poor prognostic factors were the same in both years: age over 75 years, lymph node involvement and metastases. Management place and year had no significant impact on prognosis.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations made have had little impact on disease management and the quality of anatomic pathology reports, and have not improved 5-year relative survival.

Anatomy of the lateral ligaments of the rectum: A controversial point of view

The existence and composition of the lateral ligaments of the rectum (LLR) are still the subjects of anatomical confusion and surgical misconception up to now. Since Miles proposed abdominoperineal excision as radical surgery for rectal cancer, the identification by “hooking them on the finger” has been accepted by many surgeons with no doubt; clamping, dividing and ligating are considered to be essential procedures in mobilization of the rectum in many surgical textbooks. But in cadaveric studies, many anatomists could not find LLR described by the textbooks, and more and more surgeons also failed to find LLR during the proctectomy according to the principle of total mesorectal excision. The anatomy of LLR has diverse descriptions in literatures. According to our clinical observations, the traditional anatomical structures of LLR do exist; LLR are constant dense connective bundles which are located in either lateral side of the lower part of the rectum, run between rectal visceral fascia and pelvic parietal fascia above the levator ani, and covered by superior fascia of pelvic diaphragm. They are pathways of blood vessels and nerve fibers toward the rectum and lymphatic vessels from the lower rectum toward the iliac lymph nodes.

Surgical outcome of abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer in a Nigerian tertiary institution

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer is a lifestyle-related illness with an increasing incidence in all developing countries in the last decade. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) offers a good oncologic clearance for low rectal cancer. The remaining controversies surrounding APR, as it is performed in a tertiary center in Nigeria, involve defining the role the operation plays in the management of existing rectal problems and determining what outcomes can be expected. The present study was aimed at examining the surgical outcomes of APR for low rectal cancers in a Nigerian tertiary institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-institution, retrospective, descriptive study analyzed APR rate, patient sex and age, subsite involvement, the diagnostic process, follow-up, and survival patterns after treatment of low rectal cancers. The study was conducted at Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex Ile-Ife, Nigeria, between January 1989 and December 2007.

RESULTS

During the 18-year period, 36 patients underwent APR. This accounts for 24.0% of all patients that had low rectal cancer. The age of the patients ranged from 29 years to 74 years (median: 58.9 years). Most of the patients were 60 years of age or older, and the majority were women (55.9%). The median duration of symptoms was 12 months, and all patients sought medical care for bleeding per rectum. Close to 80% of patients had advanced disease at presentation. Postoperatively, 17 patients (50%) had at least one complication and one patient (2.9%) died. Four (11.8%) patients had recurrence of the tumor, and in every case, recurrence occurred within the first year after operation. Operative blood loss (p = 0.006), degree of differentiation of the tumor (p = 0.011), distance from the anal verge (p = 0.033), and operative stage (p = 0.005) were found to significantly affect the outcome of treatment for the patients who underwent APR. The operative stage similarly affected the survival of patients (Mantel Cox = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the advanced disease of our patients, the outcome of management appears to be comparable with results reported from other centers.

A national perspective on the decline of abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess rates of abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER) for rectal cancer between centers and over time, and to evaluate the influence of patient characteristics, including social deprivation, on APER rate.

METHODS

Data on patients undergoing APER or anterior resection (AR) in England were extracted from a national administrative database for the years 1996 to 2004. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients presenting with rectal cancer undergoing APER. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify independent factors associated with a nonrestorative resection.

RESULTS

Data on 52,643 patients were analyzed, 13,109(24.9%) of whom underwent APER. The APER rate significantly reduced over the study period from 29.4% to 21.2% (P < 0.001). Operative mortality following AR decreased significantly during the period of study (5.1% to 4.2%, P = 0.002), while that following APER did not (P = 0.075). Male patients were more likely to undergo APER (P < 0.001), whereas those with an emergency presentation more commonly underwent AR (P < 0.001). Independent predictors of increased APER rate were male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.239, P < 0.001) and social deprivation (most vs. least deprived; OR = 1.589, P < 0.001), whereas increasing patient age (OR = 0.977, P = 0.027 per 10-year increase), year of study (2003/4 vs. 1996/7; OR = 0.646, P < 0.001) and initial presentation as an emergency (OR = 0.713, P < 0.001) were associated with lower APER rates. After accounting for case-mix, there was significant between-center variability in APER rates.

CONCLUSION

Socially deprived patients were more likely to undergo abdominoperineal resection. Significant improvements in rates of nonrestorative resection were seen over time but although short-term outcomes following AR have improved, those following APER have not. Permanent stoma rates following rectal cancer surgery may be considered a surrogate marker of surgical quality.

Surgical outcomes after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study reviewed the results of surgery for distal rectal cancer following the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty-four patients who had undergone elective curative surgical resection of rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were included. Comparisons were made between patients who had different surgical procedures.

RESULTS

The overall operative mortality rate was nil, and the morbidity 39.4%. With a mean follow-up of 34 months (range 5-105 months), local recurrence occurred in 21 of the patients. The 3- and 5-year actuarial local recurrence rates were 9% and 12%, respectively for the whole group. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) was necessary in 65 of 264 (24.6%) of the patients, with a very low local recurrence rate in this subgroup (5% at 3 years). On multivariate analysis, only stage was a significant prognosticator of overall survival (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

With the practice of TME, APR was still necessary in 25% of patients with rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge. Type of surgery and tumor distance from the anal verge influenced local recurrence rates, but only initial tumor stage was associated with long-term survival.

Results of treatment of distal rectal carcinoma since the introduction of total mesorectal excision: a single unit experience, 1994-2003

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study reviewed the results of surgery for distal rectal cancer (where the tumour was within 6 cm of the anal verge) following the introduction of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in one institution.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and fifty-three patients who had undergone elective curative surgical resection of rectal cancer within 6 cm of the anal verge were included. The demographic, operative and follow-up data were collected retrospectively. Comparisons were made between patients who had different surgical procedures.

RESULTS

The overall operative mortality rate was nil, and the morbidity 41%. With a mean follow-up of 37 months (range 5-100 months), local recurrence occurred in 18 of the patients. The 5-year actuarial local recurrence rates for double-stapled anastomosis, low-strength anastomosis and abdominoperineal resection (APR) were 39, 17 and 11% respectively. The local recurrence rate was significantly higher for double-stapled low anterior resection than for the other types of operation (P=0.007). On multivariate analysis type of surgery (P=0.025) and tumour stage (P=0.043), were associated with local recurrence, but only stage was a significant prognosticator of overall survival (P=0.0006).

CONCLUSION

With the practice of total mesorectal excision, APR was still necessary in 40% of patients with rectal cancer within 6 cm of the anal verge. The local recurrence rate was lower in patients treated with APR than in those with double-stapled low anterior resection; however, survival rates were similar in these two groups.

The long term survival of rectal cancer patients following abdominoperineal and anterior resection: results of a population-based observational study

AIMS

The surgical management of rectal cancer is not uniform. Both abdominoperineal (APR) and anterior resection (AR) are used in potentially curative surgery but there is no definitive evidence regarding comparative survival outcomes and no randomised controlled trials. We sought to determine if any differences in survival existed between patients who received AR or APR. In addition, we sought to determine how variations in surgical management relate to the degree of specialisation and caseload of the managing consultant.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of population-based data collected by the Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service was undertaken. All patients (3521) diagnosed with rectal cancer in the former Yorkshire Regional Health Authority (population 3.6 million) between 1986 and 1994 who received either an APR or AR were included. Survival was assessed in relation to the surgical methods adopted. In addition, we determined whether the extent of specialisation of the managing consultant influenced the type of operation adopted.

RESULTS

A Log Rank test, stratified for sex and age, showed a statistically significant 6.7% 5-year survival advantage for patients receiving AR (p=0.0064). AR was more likely to be performed by more specialist colorectal cancer surgeons (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This evidence suggests that the outcomes of the two main surgical procedures used in curative surgery for rectal cancer are different and that, when possible, AR should be the operation of choice. Our results show no indication of excess risk associated with this procedure compared with APR.

Non-restorative surgery for rectal cancer: indications in 2003

BACKGROUND

Although the majority of patients with low rectal tumours can now be offered restorative surgery, a subset of patients with very distal, locally extensive tumours, or excessive comorbidity, continue to require abdominoperineal resection or a Hartmann's procedure. The Clinical Standards Board for Scotland (CSBS) recommends that the permanent stoma rate for patients with rectal cancer should be no more than 40%. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients not suitable for restorative surgery and to explore the remaining indications for non-restorative surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data pertaining to the management of 100 consecutive patients treated for a rectal adenocarcinoma were extracted from a prospective database.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients underwent primary restorative surgery; 12 patients, 9 of whom had received neoadjuvant therapy, had abdominoperineal excision for low rectal or anorectal tumours. Seven patients with locally extensive disease underwent an unplanned Hartmann's procedure rather than high anterior resection. Two of these resections were incomplete and two patients had metastatic disease not detected on staging.

CONCLUSION

Not all patients with rectal cancer can avoid the formation of a stoma, but our results show that more than 80% of patients can be offered primary restorative surgery. The CSBS guidelines do not reflect acceptable contemporary practice and should be revised. This is particularly pertinent with the likely introduction of population screening for colorectal cancer.

[Advanced rectal cancer: attitudes of French surgeons]

PURPOSE

French guidelines recommended the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers. Our aim was first to describe therapeutic decision of digestive surgeons related to clinical cases and then to measure their knowledge of french guidelines.

METHODS

Two vignettes were mailed to 183 french surgeons, randomly selected. The first one dealt with a man, 46-years-old, with a rectal cancer T3N0M0. The second one dealt with a woman, 50-years-old, with a rectal cancer complicated by a rectovaginal fistula. Questions covered the decision modality and the therapeutic choice.

RESULTS

We received back 124 responses (67%). The decision modality was multidisciplinary for half of the surgeons. For the former case, the therapeutic choice fits with guidelines--radiotherapy followed by conservative surgery--for 69% of surgeons. For the latter case, more than half of the surgeons chose an association of radiotherapy-surgery-chemotherapy. Age appeared to be a limiting factor for a curative surgery. Surgeons therapeutics attitudes meet with changes in practice already observed in 1990, but 1/3 of surgeons still did not follow the guidelines. Chemotherapy was chosen while its efficacy has not been demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

There is few overlapping between attitudes, and optimal surgical practices. Quality of surgery, in the art of debate, may improve thanks to the rulemaking of therapeutic decisions and thanks to the evolution of the state-of-the-art among multidisciplinary committees or professional networks.

Risk factors contributing to early occurrence of port site metastases of laparoscopic surgery for malignancy

In this article, the authors present an up-to-date review of our experience and that of the medical literature encompassing all important aspects of port site metastases after laparoscopic surgery for malignancy and to search for potential risks with contribution to early occurrence of port site metastases after laparoscopic surgery. We used a Medline computer database search to conduct for pertinent articles through September 1996. Cross-referencing identified additional publications. We found that the majority of recurrences were in patients with adenocarcinoma cell type, advanced stage (far-advanced disease), and often with diffuse peritoneal carcinomatosis, suggesting that port site metastases may contribute to the highly aggressive nature of the disease. Risk factors that contributed to early occurrence of port site metastases were ovarian cancers, presence of ascites, and diagnostic or palliative procedures for malignancy (P < 0.0001, P = 0.008, and P < 0.001, respectively). Practitioners should exercise extreme caution when using laparoscopic techniques to manage the care of these patients.

Personalized surgery for rectal tumours: the patient's opinion counts

In recent times there have been many important changes in the surgical management of rectal cancer. The general thrust of these changes has been towards a less invasive approach with preservation of intestinal continuity and avoidance of the psychological sequelae of a stoma. It is also becoming increasingly apparent that profound sexual and autonomic dysfunction can be associated with abdominoperineal resection. This paper highlights these issues and the conflict between performing an adequate oncological procedure and reducing the incidence of postoperative psychological morbidity. It outlines the great changes there have been in surgical technique and their relevance to psychological problems after surgery for rectal cancer. The need for auditing psychological morbidity when assessing the outcome of surgical series is emphasised, as is the importance of involving the patient in the medical decision making.