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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Transperineal minimally invasive abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: standardized technique and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing utilization of transanal total mesorectal excision as a promising approach for low rectal cancer, the feasibility and safety of transperineal minimally invasive abdominoperineal resection (tp-APR) remain unclear.

METHODS

In total, 25 patients who underwent tp-APR between April 2017 and May 2020 (tp-APR group) and 27 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic APR between May 2009 and September 2016 (lap-APR group) for low rectal cancer were enrolled in this retrospective study. Clinical outcomes were compared between the groups before and after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the incidence of the overall postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo grade II or above. Standardized technique of tp-APR was also demonstrated.

RESULTS

On comparison, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and overall postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo grade II or above were significantly less in the tp-APR group both before and after propensity score matching. The rates of urinary disturbance and perineal wound infection were significantly less in the tp-APR group after matching. Further, postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the tp-APR group both before and after matching. However, pathological outcomes did not differ between the groups before and after matching. There has been no local recurrence in the tp-APR group with a median follow-up period of 18 months.

CONCLUSION

Standardized tp-APR for low rectal cancer is feasible and seems superior to conventional laparoscopic APR in terms of short-term outcomes. Further larger-scale studies with a longer follow-up period are required to evaluate oncological outcomes.

Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in a regional hospital: the implementation of a standardized surgical procedure counterbalances the lack of experience

Background

Although a larger proportion of colorectal surgeries have been performed laparoscopically in the last few years, a steep learning curve prevents us from considering laparoscopic colorectal surgery as the gold standard technique for treating disease entities in the colon and rectum. The purpose of this single centre study was to determine, using various parameters and following a well-structured and standardized surgical procedure, the adequate number of cases after which a single surgeon qualified in open surgery but with no previous experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery and without supervision, can acquire proficiency in this technique.

Methods

From 2012 to 2019, 112 patients with pathology in the rectum and colon underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection by a team led by the same surgeon. The patients were divided into two groups (group A:50 – group B:62) and their case records and histopathology reports were examined for predefined parameters, statistically analysed and compared between groups.

Results

There was no significant difference between groups in the distribution of conversions (p = 0.635) and complications (p = 0.637). Patients in both groups underwent surgery for the same median number of lymph nodes (p = 0.145) and stayed the same number of days in the hospital (p = 0.109). A statistically important difference was found in operation duration both for the total (p = 0.006) and for each different type of colectomy (sigmoidectomy: p = 0.026, right colectomy: p = 0.013, extralevator abdominoperineal resection: p = 0.050, low anterior resection: p = 0.083).

Conclusions

Taking into consideration all the parameters, it is our belief that a surgeon acquires proficiency in laparoscopic colorectal surgery after performing at least 50 diverse cases with a well structured and standardized surgical procedure.

A new surgical approach of direct perineal wound full-thick closure for perineal wound of abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma: A prospective cohort trial

Perineal wound complications after APR have high morbidity in the colorectal surgical department. Although some approaches have been figured out to solve this clinical focus, the outcomes are still not satisfied. Herein, this prospective comparative clinical trial has been designed to evaluate a new surgical procedure of direct perineal wound full-thick closure (DPWC), compared with conventional perineal wound closure (CPWC), with hopes of making wound healing with less complications. In addition, an evaluation of an incision negative wound pressure therapy, as another focus in this field, was also analysed in the DPWC group. A total of 44 participants in our department were recruited from March 2018 to March 2020, divided into two groups randomly, CPWC group and DPWC group. The patients' characteristics, such as age, gender, BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, comorbidities, CEA level, and high-risk of invasion, were recorded without statistical significance between the CPWC group and DPWC group. After the same standard abdominal phase, these two groups were performed in different perineal phases. And then, operative and postoperative outcomes were analysed with different statistical methods. Data on wound healing time and length of stay in the DPWC group were shorter than those in the CPWC group (P < .05). Furthermore, cases of wound infection within 30 days in the DPWC group were also less than that in the CPWC group (P < .05). However, no difference was found between the incisional negative pressure wound therapy assisted group (NPA group) and non- incisional negative pressure wound therapy assisted group (non-NPA group). During this study, hypoalbuminemia, as an independent high-risk factor, impacted perineal wound healing. (P = .0271) In conclusion, DPWC is a new surgical approach, which can lead to a better outcome than DPWC, and it can be another surgical procedure for clinicians. In addition, hypoalbuminemia should be interfered for avoiding perineal wound complications.

The quality of lymph node harvests in extralevator abdominoperineal excisions

Background

Lymph node (LN) harvest in colorectal cancer resections is a well-recognised prognostic factor for disease staging and determining survival, particularly for node-negative (N0) diseases. Extralevator abdominoperineal excisions (ELAPE) aim to prevent “waisting” that occurs during conventional abdominoperineal resections (APR) for low rectal cancers, and reducing circumferential resection margin (CRM) infiltration rate. Our study investigates whether ELAPE may also improve the quality of LN harvests, addressing gaps in the literature.

Methods

This retrospective observational study reviewed 2 sets of 30 consecutive APRs before and after the adoption of ELAPE in our unit. The primary outcomes are the total LN counts and rates of meeting the standard of 12-minimum, particularly for those with node-negative disease. The secondary outcomes are the CRM involvement rates. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, laparoscopic or open surgery and the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were accounted for in our analyses.

Results

Median LN counts were slightly higher in the ELAPE group (16.5 vs. 15). Specimens failing the minimum 12-LN requirements were almost significantly fewer in the ELAPE group (OR 0.456, P = 0.085). Among node-negative rectal cancers, significantly fewer resections failed the 12-LN standard in the ELAPE group than APR group (OR 0.211, P = 0.044). ELAPE led to a near-significant decrease in CRM involvement (OR 0.365, P = 0.088). These improvements were persistently observed after taking into account baselines and potential confounders in regression analyses.

Conclusion

ELAPE provides higher quality of LN harvests that meet the 12-minimal requirements than conventional APR, particularly in node-negative rectal cancers. The superiority is independent of potential confounding factors, and may implicate better clinical outcomes.

Selection and Outcomes in Abdominoperineal Resection

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.