Extralevator with vs nonextralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer: the RELAPe randomized controlled trial

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.

Disparities in Clinical Trial Enrollment and Reporting in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Demographic Comparison to the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Cancer care guidelines based on clinical trial data in homogenous populations may not be applicable to all rectal cancer patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients enrolled in rectal cancer clinical trials (CTs) are representative of United States (U.S.) rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Prospective rectal cancer CTs from 2010 to 2019 in the United States were systematically reviewed. In trials with multiple arms reporting separate demographic variables, each arm was considered a separate CT group in the analysis. Demographic variables considered in the analysis were age, sex, race/ethnicity, facility location throughout the United States, rural vs urban geography, and facility type. Participant demographics from trial and the National Cancer Database (NCDB) participants were compared using chi-squared goodness of fit and one-sample t-test where applicable.

RESULTS

Of 50 CT groups identified, 42 (82%) studies reported mean or median age. Trial participants were younger compared to NCDB patients (P < .001 all studies). All but three trials had fewer female patients than NCDB (48.2% female, P < .001). Less than half the CT groups reported on race or ethnicity. Eighteen out of 22 trials (82%) had a smaller percentage of Black patients and 4 out of 8 (50%) trials had fewer Hispanic or Spanish origin patients than the NCDB. No CTs reported comorbidities, socioeconomic factors, or education. CT primary sites were largely at academic centers and in urban areas.

CONCLUSION

The present study supports the need for improved demographic representation and transparency in rectal cancer clinical trials.

Research highlight: surgical outcomes of gluteal VY plasty after extensive abdominoperineal resection or total pelvic exenteration

OBJECTIVE

To describe a suitable alternative technique for reconstruction of the pelvic floor after extensive resection. To review our outcomes of gluteal VY plasty in the reconstruction of the pelvic floor after extensive abdominoperineal resection (conventional or extralevator abdominoperineal resection, total pelvic exenteration, or salvage surgery).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

An academic hospital and tertiary referral centre for the treatment of locally advanced or locally recurrent rectal cancer, and salvage surgery in The Netherlands.

PATIENTS

Forty-one consecutive patients who underwent a pelvic floor reconstruction with gluteal VY plasty at Maastricht University Medical Centre between January 2017 and February 2021 were included. The minimum duration of follow-up was 2 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perineal herniation is the primary outcome measure. Furthermore, the occurrence of minor and major postoperative complications and long-term outcomes were retrospectively assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (85.4%) developed one or more complications of whom twenty-one patients experienced minor complications and fourteen patients developed major complications. Fifty-seven percent of complications was not related to the VY reconstruction. Six patients (14.6%) recovered without any postoperative complications during follow-up. Three patients developed a perineal hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

A gluteal VY plasty is a suitable technique for reconstruction of the pelvic floor after extensive perineal resections resulting in a low perineal hernia rate, albeit the complication rate remains high in this challenging group of patients.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE for low rectal cancer

This study was performed to retrospectively analyze and compare the related clinical indicators between extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE under laparoscopic for low rectal cancer. From June 2018 to September 2021, a total of 80 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent either of the above two types of surgeries at our Hospital were enrolled. Patients were divided into the ELAPE group and non-ELAPE group based on the different surgical methods. Preoperative general indicators, intraoperative indicators, postoperative complications, positive circumferential resection margin rate, local recurrence rate, hospital stay length, hospital expenses, and other related indicators were compared between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the comparison of preoperative indexes between the ELAPE group and non-ELAPE group, including age, preoperative BMI, and gender. Similarly, there were no significant differences in abdominal operation time, total operation time, and the number of intraoperative lymph nodes dissected between the two groups. However, the perineal operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative perforation rate, and positive circumferential resection margin rate were significantly different between the two groups. In the comparison of postoperative indexes, perineal complications, postoperative hospital stay length, and IPSS score were significantly different between the two groups. The use of ELAPE in treating T3-4NxM0 phase low rectal cancer was superior to non-ELAPE in reducing intraoperative perforation rate, positive circumferential resection margin rate, local recurrence rate, etc.

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.

Postoperative MRI Findings Following Conventional and Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision in Low Rectal Cancer

Aim: The disparity in outcomes for low rectal cancer may reflect differences in operative approach and quality. The extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) was developed to reduce margin involvement in low rectal cancers by widening the excision of the conventional abdominoperineal excision (c-APE) to include the posterior pelvic diaphragm. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and localization of inadvertent residual pelvic diaphragm on postoperative MRI after intended ELAPE and c-APE. Methods: A total of 147 patients treated with c-APE or ELAPE for rectal cancer were included. Postoperative MRI was performed on 51% of the cohort (n = 75) and evaluated with regard to the residual pelvic diaphragm by a radiologist trained in pelvic MRI. Patient records, histopathological reports, and standardized photographs were assessed. Pathology and MRI findings were evaluated independently in a blinded fashion. Additionally, preoperative MRIs were evaluated for possible risk factors for margin involvement. Results: Magnetic resonance imaging-detected residual pelvic diaphragm was identified in 45 (75.4%) of 61 patients who underwent ELAPE and in 14 (100%) of 14 patients who underwent c-APE. An increased risk of margin involvement was observed in anteriorly oriented tumors with 16 (22%) of 73 anteriorly oriented tumors presenting with margin involvement vs. 7 (9%) of 74 non-anteriorly oriented tumors (p = 0.038). Conclusion: Residual pelvic diaphragm following abdominoperineal excision can be depicted by postoperative MRI. Inadvertent residual pelvic diaphragm (RPD) was commonly found in the series of patients treated with the ELAPE technique. Anterior tumor orientation was a risk factor for circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement regardless of surgical approach.

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.

Postoperative complications of colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer, and surgery is the most common treatment. Several surgical options are available, but each is associated with a range of potential complications. The timely and efficient identification of these complications is vital for effective clinical management of these patients in order to minimise their morbidity and mortality. This review aims to describe the range of commonly performed surgical treatments for colorectal surgery. In addition, frequent post-surgical complications are explored with investigative options explained and illustrated.

Association of certification, improved quality and better oncological outcomes for rectal cancer in a specialized colorectal unit

PURPOSE

Centralization of cancer care is expected to yield superior results. In Germany, the national strategy is based on a voluntary certification process. The effect of centre certification is difficult to prove because quality data are rarely available prior to certification. This observational study aims to assess outcomes for rectal cancer patients before and after implementation of a certified cancer centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients treated for rectal cancer in our certified centre from 2009 to 2017 were retrieved from a prospective database. The dataset was analyzed according to a predefined set of 19 quality indicators comprising 36 quality goals. The results were compared to an identical cohort of patients, treated from 2000 to 2008 just before centre implementation.

RESULTS

In total, 1059 patients were included, 481 in the 2009-2017 interval and 578 in the 2000-2008 interval. From 2009 to 2017, 25 of 36 quality goals were achieved (vs. 19/36). The proportion of anastomotic leaks in low anastomoses was improved (13.5% vs. 22.1%, p = 0.018), as was the local 5-year recurrence rate for stage (y)pIII rectal cancers (7.7% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.085), and quality of mesorectal excision (0.3% incomplete resections vs. 5.5%, p = 0.002). Furthermore, a decrease of abdominoperineal excisions was noted (47.1% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.037). For the 2009-2017 interval, local 5-year recurrence rate in stages (y)p0-III was 4.6% and 5-year overall survival was 80.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Certification as specialized centre and regular audits were associated with an improvement of various quality parameters. The formal certification process has the potential to enhance quality of care for rectal cancer patients.

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.

Transperineal minimally invasive APE: preliminary outcomes in a multicenter cohort

Background

Abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer is associated with a relatively high risk of positive margins and postoperative morbidity, particularly related to perineal wound healing problems. It is unknown whether the use of a minimally invasive approach for the perineal part of these procedures can improve postoperative outcomes without oncological compromise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of minimally invasive transperineal abdominoperineal excision (TpAPE)

Methods

This multicenter retrospective cohort study included all patients having TpAPE for primary low rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was the intraoperative complication rate. Secondary endpoints included major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3), histopathology results, and perineal wound healing.

Results

A total of 32 TpAPE procedures were performed in five centers. A bilateral extralevator APE (ELAPE) was performed in 17 patients (53%), a unilateral ELAPE in 7 (22%), and an APE in 8 (25%). Intraoperative complications occurred in five cases (16%) and severe postoperative morbidity in three cases (9%). There were no perioperative deaths. A positive margin (R1) was observed in four patients (13%) and specimen perforation occurred in two (6%). The unilateral extralevator TpAPE group had worse specimen quality and a higher proportion of R1 resections than the bilateral ELAPE or standard APE groups. The rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing was 53% (n = 17) and three patients (9%) required surgical reintervention.

Conclusions

TpAPE seems to be feasible with acceptable perioperative morbidity and a relatively low rate of perineal wound dehiscence, while histopathological outcomes remain suboptimal. Additional evaluation of the viability of this technique is needed in the form of a prospective trial with standardization of the procedure, indication, audit of outcomes and performed by surgeons with vast experience in transanal total mesorectal excision.

Postoperative complications and mobilisation following major abdominal surgery with vs. without fitness tracker-based feedback (EXPELLIARMUS): study protocol for a student-led multicentre randomised controlled trial (CHIR-Net SIGMA study group)

BACKGROUND

Postoperative complications following major abdominal surgery are frequent despite progress in surgical technique and perioperative care. Early and enhanced postoperative mobilisation has been advocated to reduce postoperative complications, but it is still unknown whether it can independently improve outcomes after major surgery. Fitness trackers (FTs) are a promising tool to improve postoperative mobilisation, but their effect on postoperative complications and recovery has not been investigated in clinical trials.

METHODS

This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with two parallel study groups evaluating the efficacy of an enhanced and early mobilisation protocol in combination with FT-based feedback in patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery. Participants are randomly assigned (1:1) to either the experimental group, which receives daily step goals and a FT giving feedback about daily steps, or the control group, which is mobilised according to hospital standards. The control group also receives a FT, however with a blackened screen; thus no FT-based feedback is possible. Randomisation will be stratified by type of surgery (laparoscopic vs. open). The primary endpoint of the study is postoperative morbidity within 30 days measured via the Comprehensive Complication Index. Secondary endpoints include number of steps as well as a set of functional, morbidity and safety parameters. A total of 348 patients will be recruited in 15 German centres. The study will be conducted and organised by the student-led German Clinical Trial Network SIGMA.

DISCUSSION

Our study aims at investigating whether the implementation of a simple mobilisation protocol in combination with FT-based feedback can reduce postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. If so, FTs would offer a cost-effective intervention to enhance postoperative mobilisation and improve patient outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS, German Clinical Trials Register): DRKS00016755, UTN U1111-1228-3320. Registered on 06.03.2019.

Long-term outcomes of biological mesh repair following extra levator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum: an observational study of 100 patients

Background

Current evidence suggests that pelvic floor reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision of rectum (ELAPER) may reduce the risk of perineal herniation of intra-abdominal contents. Options for reconstruction include mesh and myocutaneous flaps, for which long-term follow-up data is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of biological mesh (Surgisis^®, Biodesign™) reconstruction following ELAPER.

Methods

A retrospective review of all patients having ELAPER in a single institution between 2008 and 2018 was perfomed. Clinic letters were scrutinised for wound complications and all available cross sectional imaging was reviewed to identify evidence of perineal herniation (defined as presence of intra-abdominal content below a line between the coccyx and the lower margin of the pubic symphysis on sagittal view).

Results

One hundred patients were identified (median age 66, IQR 59–72 years, 70% male). Median length of follow-up was 4.9 years (IQR 2.3–6.7 years). One, 2- and 5-year mortality rates were 3, 8 and 12%, respectively. Thirty three perineal wounds had not healed by 1 month, but no mesh was infected and no mesh needed to be removed. Only one patient developed a symptomatic perineal hernia requiring repair. On review of imaging a further 7 asymptomatic perineal hernias were detected. At 4 years the cumulative radiologically detected perineal hernia rate was 8%.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that pelvic floor reconstruction using biological mesh following ELAPER is both safe and effective as a long-term solution, with low major complication rates. Symptomatic perineal herniation is rare following mesh reconstruction, but may develop sub clinically and be detectable on cross-sectional imaging.

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.

Predictors of surgical outcomes and survival in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: the interest of pelvimetry and restaging magnetic resonance imaging studies

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) requires a multimodal therapy tailored to the patient and tumor characteristics. Pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is necessary to stage the primary tumor, while restaging MRI, which is not systematically performed, may be of interest to identify poor responders to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NCRT), and redefine therapeutic approach. The EuMaRCS study group aimed to investigate the role and accuracy of pretreatment (including pelvimetry) and restaging MRIs in predicting surgical difficulties and surgical outcomes in LARC therapy.

METHODS

Patients with mid or low LARC who were administered NCRT, who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision, and for whom pretreatment and restaging MRIs were available, were included.

RESULTS

MRIs of 170 patients (median age: 61 years) were reanalyzed by the same radiologist. Pelvimetry differed significantly between males and females, but no gender difference was noted in the clinical and tumor characteristics. Tumor volume and tumor height assessed on the restaging MRI were associated, respectively, with operative time and estimated blood loss. Conversion was predicted by tumor volume, interischial distance and pubic tubercle height. The quality of the surgical resection was found to be a predictor of overall and disease-free survival. The sensitivity and specificity of tumor regression grade 1 to identify a pathologic complete response were 76.9% and 89.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In LARC management, pelvimetry and restaging MRI may be useful to predict surgical difficulties and surgical outcomes. However, the main independent predictor of patient survival appears to be the achievement of a successful surgical resection.

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.