A comparison of published rates of resection margin involvement and intra-operative perforation between standard and 'cylindrical' abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer

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.

Brazilian society of surgical oncology: Guidelines for the surgical treatment of mid-low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer in North America, Western Europe, and Brazil, and represents an important public health problem. It is estimated that approximately 30% of all the CRC cases correspond to tumors located in the rectum, requiring complex multidisciplinary treatment. In an effort to provide surgeons who treat rectal cancer with the most current information based on the best evidence in the literature, the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology (SBCO) has produced the present guidelines for rectal cancer treatment that is focused on the main topics related to daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The SBCO developed the present guidelines to provide recommendations on the main topics related to the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer based on current scientific evidence.

METHODS

Between May and June 2021, 11 experts in CRC surgery met to develop the guidelines for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer. A total of 22 relevant topics were disseminated among the participants. The methodological quality of a final list with 221 sources was evaluated, all the evidence was examined and revised, and the treatment guideline was formulated by the 11-expert committee. To reach a final consensus, all the topics were reviewed via a videoconference meeting that was attended by all 11 of the experts.

RESULTS

The prepared guidelines contained 22 topics considered to be highly relevant in the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer, covering subjects related to the tests required for staging, surgical technique-related aspects, recommended measures to reduce surgical complications, neoadjuvant strategies, and nonoperative treatments. In addition, a checklist was proposed to summarize the important information and offer an updated tool to assist surgeons who treat rectal cancer provide the best care to their patients.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines summarize concisely the recommendations based on the most current scientific evidence on the most relevant aspects of the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer and are a practical guide that can help surgeons who treat rectal cancer make the best therapeutic decision.

Surgical and oncological short-term outcomes of prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer

Introduction In recent years, a standardized surgical approach for low rectal cancer was proposed and adopted in many centres. The extralevator abdominoperineal excision introduce an extensive resection of the pelvic floor and demonstrated superiority if the procedure is done in the prone jack-knife position, especially regarding intraoperative perforation and circumferential resections margins. The aim of this study is to evaluate the surgical and oncological short-term outcomes of prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision.

Methods All patients registered in our institution from January 2003 to January 2015 who underwent abdominoperineal resection or prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiation were retrospectively included from prospective maintained data base and were compared regarding surgical and oncological outcomes.

Results Eighty-nine patients underwent curative intent resections. Abdominoperineal resection was performed in 67 patients and prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision in 22 patients. There were no statistical significant differences between groups regarding pathological stage, median number of harvested lymph node, intraoperative perforation, circumferential resections margins involvement and recurrence rates. Surgical outcomes were statistically different between groups. Twenty-six patients (29%) developed perineal complications, 21% of the abdominoperineal resection patients and 55% of the prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision (p < 0.001). Most of these complications were due to delayed perineal wound healing (12.4%), and wound abscesses (4.5%). However, the readmission rate and median length of hospital stay was higher in the abdominoperineal resection group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion Prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision is comparable to standard abdominoperineal resection. It was associated to a decrease in length of hospital stay and readmission rate, although more perineal complications occurred. We cannot recommend it as a standard technique for all low rectal cancer. Notwithstanding, prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision can be considered a more radical approach when there is sphincter complex or levators muscles invasion.

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

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

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.

Oncological outcomes before and after the extralevator abdominoperineal excision era in rectal cancer patients treated with abdominoperineal excision in a single centre, high volume unit

AIM

The extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has been expected to reduce the risk of positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) and local recurrence in locally advanced distal rectal cancer. The aim was to determine whether there is any difference in local recurrence rates between patients who were operated on for distal rectal cancer before and after the introduction of ELAPE in our unit.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 206 patients with distal rectal cancer without distant metastases (T1-4N0-2M0) were treated with curative intent. The patients were divided into two cohorts operated in 2000-2007 (A) and 2008-2014 (B). The ELAPE procedure was introduced in 2008. Since then, it has been used in cases of T4 and T3 tumours with threatened margins. In T1-T3 tumours without threatened margins a conventional abdominal perineal excision has been performed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall survival or cancer-specific survival between the two time periods. The local recurrence rate was 15.5% in group A and 6.7% in group B (P = 0.048), although there was no significant difference in the cumulative local recurrence rate. Intra-operative tumour perforation occurred significantly more often during the earlier period when ELAPE was not in use: group A 15/71 (21.1%) vs group B 11/135 (8.1%), P = 0.01. CRM was positive more often in group A (16.4%) vs group B (7.4%), P = 0.054.

CONCLUSION

The local recurrence rate, intra-operative tumour perforation and positive CRM rate were significantly lower during the later period when more extensive surgery (ELAPE) was performed for locally advanced T3-T4 rectal cancer with threatened margins.

Comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs. open abdominoperineal resection in terms of operative and initial oncological outcomes

Purpose

The present study aimed to objectively evaluate robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection (APR) in comparison with open APR, in terms of operative elements and initial oncological outcomes.

Methods

A total of 118 patients with lower rectal adenocarcinoma who had undergone curative APR were consecutively enrolled between June 2010 and June 2016, i.e., robot-assisted group (n = 40) and open group (n = 78).

Results

Transabdominal extralevator muscle excision was more frequently performed in the robot-assisted group than in the open group (68% vs. 42%, P = 0.012). In the robot-assisted group, the pain score at one day after surgery was less than in the open group, and the resumption of bowel function was earlier (P = 0.043 and P = 0.002, respectively). The occurrence of circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM+) was more than 5 times greater in the open group than in the robot-assisted group, presenting a marginal significance (P = 0.057). Although important postoperative morbidity did not generally differ between the 2 groups, voiding difficulty and male sexual dysfunction appeared to be encountered more frequently in the open group than in the robot-assisted group.

Conclusion

The robot-assisted APR facilitated transabdominal extralevator excision and bowel recovery and demonstrated a trend towards reduced CRM+.

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

Background

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

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

•

A single high-volume Centre, retrospective study.

•

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

•

Positive CRM is associated with increased local recurrence.

•

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

•

The numbers needed to treat are 9.

•

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

A systematic review of transabdominal levator division during abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER)

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the surgical technique, short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes for the transabdominal division of the levator ani muscles during abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify studies reporting on transabdominal division of the levator ani during APER. A comprehensive literature search was performed using a combination of free-text terms and controlled vocabulary when applicable on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library. The search period was from January 1945 to December 2015. The following search headings were used: "transabdominal", "transpelvic", "abdominal" or "pelvic" combined with either "levator" or "extralevator" and with "abdominoperineal".

RESULTS

Nine publications were identified reporting on 99 participants. The male/female distribution was 1.44:1, respectively, and the mean age was 56.6 (30-77) years. All tumours were less than 5 cm from the anal verge. The preoperative radiological staging was T2 in 18% of cases, T3 in 53.5% and T4 in 28.5%. Transabdominal division of the levators was performed laparoscopically in 55 cases, robotically in 34 and open in 10. The mean operating time was 255 (177-640) min. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 140 (92-500) ml. There were no conversions to open. Circumferential resection margins were positive in two cases, and there was one intraoperative perforation. Mean post-operative length of stay was 9.3 (3-67) days. Follow-up (from 0 to 31 months) revealed 19 perineal wound infections, 15 cases of sexual dysfunction and 7 cases of urinary retention. There was no mortality and 1 readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Transabdominal division of the levators during APER is feasible and reproducible, with acceptable perioperative and good early oncological outcomes. Further comparative studies are needed.

Survival after Abdominoperineal and Sphincter-Preserving Resection in Nonmetastatic Rectal Cancer: A Population-Based Time-Trend and Propensity Score-Matched SEER Analysis

Background. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been associated with impaired survival in nonmetastatic rectal cancer patients. It is unclear whether this adverse outcome is due to the surgical procedure itself or is a consequence of tumor-related characteristics. Study Design. Patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The impact of APR compared to coloanal anastomosis (CAA) on survival was assessed by Cox regression and propensity-score matching. Results. In 36,488 patients with rectal cancer resection, the APR rate declined from 31.8% in 1998 to 19.2% in 2011, with a significant trend change in 2004 at 21.6% (P < 0.001). To minimize a potential time-trend bias, survival analysis was limited to patients diagnosed after 2004. APR was associated with an increased risk of cancer-specific mortality after unadjusted analysis (HR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.28-2.03, P < 0.01) and multivariable adjustment (HR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.10-1.76, P < 0.01). After optimal adjustment of highly biased patient characteristics by propensity-score matching, APR was not identified as a risk factor for cancer-specific mortality (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.56-1.29, P = 0.456). Conclusions. The current propensity score-adjusted analysis provides evidence that worse oncological outcomes in patients undergoing APR compared to CAA are caused by different patient characteristics and not by the surgical procedure itself.

[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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Wound Complications and Perineal Pain After Extralevator Versus Standard Abdominoperineal Excision: A Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision was introduced as an alternative to conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancers. The perineal dissection is more extensive with extralevator abdominoperineal excision and leaves a greater defect.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate, on a national basis, the risk of perineal wound complications, pain, and hernia after conventional and extralevator abdominoperineal excision performed for low rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study collecting data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database and from electronic medical files of patients.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at Danish surgical departments.

PATIENTS

A total of 445 patients operated between 2009 and 2012 with extralevator or conventional abdominoperineal excision were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main end points of this study were perineal wound complications and pain lasting for >30 days after the operation.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were demographically similar except for a higher ASA score in the conventional group. In the extralevator group, neoadjuvant chemoradiation was more frequent (71% vs 41%; p < 0.001), T stage was higher (more T3 tumors; 52% vs 38%; p = 0.006), and more tumors were fixed (21% vs 12%; p = 0.02). Perineal wound complications and pain were more frequent after extralevator versus conventional excision (44% vs 25%; p < 0.001 and 38% vs 22%; p < 0.001). After multivariate analyses, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, extralevator excision, and operation early in the study period were found to have a significant influence on the risk of long-term wound complications. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and wound complications were significant risk factors for long-term perineal pain. Results were similar after subgroup analyses on low tumors only.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study. The 2 groups were not completely comparable at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation, extralevator compared with conventional excision, and operation early in the study period were significant factors for predicting perineal wound complications. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and wound complications were predictors of long-term perineal pain.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (Elape): A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) is relatively new surgical technique for low rectal cancers. It is a more radical approach than conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) with potentially better oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to analyse short term results of ELAPE compared with conventional abdominoperineal excision.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively for 72 patients who underwent abdominoperineal excision (APE) for low rectal carcinomas from 2010 to 2014. Of these 24 patients underwent ELAPE with biological prosthetic mesh used to close the perineal defect.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 68 (37-87). Positive circumferential resection margin (1/24 vs. 8/48) and Intra operative perorations (0/24 vs. 6/48) compared favourably with ELAPE.

CONCLUSIONS

Short term results from this study support that ELAPE has better oncological outcome.

Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer--Extensive Surgery to Be Used With Discretion Based on 3-Year Local Recurrence Results: A Registry-based, Observational National Cohort Study

Objectives:

The aim of this prospective registry-based population study was to investigate the efficacy of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) regarding local recurrence rates within 3 years after surgery.

Background:

Local recurrence of rectal cancer is more common after abdominoperineal excision (APE) than after anterior resection. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision was introduced to address this problem. No large-scale studies with long-term oncological outcomes have been published.

Methods:

All Swedish patients operated on with an APE and registered in the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry 2007 to 2009 were included (n = 1397) and analyzed with emphasis on the perineal part of the operation. Local recurrence at 3 years was collected from the registry.

Results:

The local recurrence rates at 3 years [median follow-up, 3.43 years (APE, 3.37 years; ELAPE, 3.41 years; not stated: 3.43 years)] were significantly higher for ELAPE compared with APE (relative risk, 4.91). Perioperative perforation was also associated with an increased risk of local recurrence (relative risk, 3.62). There was no difference in 3-year overall survival between APE and ELAPE. In the subgroup of patients with very low tumors (≤4 cm from the anal verge), no significant difference in the local recurrence rate could be observed.

Conclusions:

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision results in a significantly increased 3-year local recurrence rate as compared with standard APE. Intraoperative perforation seems to be an important risk factor for local recurrence. In addition to significantly increased 3-year local recurrence rates, the significantly increased incidence of wound complications leads to the conclusion that ELAPE should only be considered in selected patients at risk of intraoperative perforation.

Selective extra levator versus conventional abdomino perineal resection: experience from a tertiary-care center

BACKGROUND

To compare extra levator abdomino perineal resection (ELAPER) with conventional abdominoperineal resection (APER) in terms of short-term oncological and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database including all the patients of rectal cancer who underwent APER at Tata Memorial Center between July 1, 2013, and January 31, 2015. Short-term oncological parameters evaluated included circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM), tumor site perforation, and number of nodes harvested. Peri operative outcomes included blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative perineal wound complications, and 30-day mortality. The χ(2)-test was used to compare the results between the two groups.

RESULTS

Forty-two cases of ELAPER and 78 cases of conventional APER were included in the study. Levator involvement was significantly higher in the ELAPER compared with the conventional group; otherwise, the two groups were comparable in all the aspects. CRM involvement was seen in seven patients (8.9%) in the conventional group compared with three patients (7.14%) in the ELAPER group. Median hospital stay was significantly longer with ELAPER. The univariate analysis of the factors influencing CRM positivity did not show any significance.

CONCLUSIONS

ELAPER should be the preferred approach for low rectal tumors with involvement of levators. For those cases in which levators are not involved, as shown in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the current evidence is insufficient to recommend ELAPER over conventional APER. This stresses the importance of preoperative MRI in determining the best approach for an individual patient.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical practice guidelines for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer: a consensus statement of the Hellenic Society of Medical Oncologists (HeSMO)

In rectal cancer management, accurate staging by magnetic resonance imaging, neo-adjuvant treatment with the use of radiotherapy, and total mesorectal excision have resulted in remarkable improvement in the oncological outcomes. However, there is substantial discrepancy in the therapeutic approach and failure to adhere to international guidelines among different Greek-Cypriot hospitals. The present guidelines aim to aid the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer, considering both the local special characteristics of our healthcare system and the international relevant agreements (ESMO, EURECCA). Following background discussion and online communication sessions for feedback among the members of an executive team, a consensus rectal cancer management was obtained. Statements were subjected to the Delphi methodology voting system on two rounds to achieve further consensus by invited multidisciplinary international experts on colorectal cancer. Statements were considered of high, moderate or low consensus if they were voted by ≥80%, 60-80%, or <60%, respectively; those obtaining a low consensus level after both voting rounds were rejected. One hundred and two statements were developed and voted by 100 experts. The mean rate of abstention per statement was 12.5% (range: 2-45%). In the end of the process, all statements achieved a high consensus. Guidelines and algorithms of diagnosis and treatment were proposed. The importance of centralization, care by a multidisciplinary team, adherence to guidelines, and personalization is emphasized.

Standard versus extralevator abdominoperineal low rectal cancer excision outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The extended, extralevator abdominoperineal excision has been described with the aim of improving oncological low rectal cancer patient outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Ovid for standard and extralevator abdominoperineal rectal cancer excision studies between 1995 and 2013. A total of 1,270 articles were identified and screened, and of these, 58 reports (1 randomized, 5 case-control and 52 cohort studies) were included for the qualitative analysis, and 6 were included for the quantitative analysis. The primary endpoints included intraoperative tumor perforation, the circumferential resection margin involvement, local recurrence rate, and the perineal wound complication rate. The secondary endpoints included the length of postoperative hospital stay and quality of life. Comprehensive Rev Men, version 5.2 was used for the statistical calculations.

RESULTS

A significant difference in the circumferential resection margin involvement rate [odds ratio (OR) 2.9; p < .001], intraoperative perforation (OR 4.30; p < .001), local recurrence rate (OR 2.52; p = .02), and length of hospital stay (OR 1.06; p < .001) in favor of the extended group was observed. Additionally, the perineal wound complications were higher in the extended group (OR 0.62; p = .007). No difference in quality of life was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis confirms the oncological advantages of the extended abdominoperineal excision method. Although the perineal wound complications were higher, the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter, and quality of life was not inferior to the conventional resection method.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the short-term outcome

AIM

The superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) over conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) remains controversial, despite the publication of many studies on this issue. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a clear, evidence-based comparison of the two procedures.

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through a comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE/Medline and Cochrane Central Library databases for all studies comparing ELAPE with conventional APE for low rectal cancer. Pooled data on circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity, intra-operative bowel perforation, perineal wound complications and local recurrence were analysed.

RESULTS

Seven studies, involving a total of 2672 patients, were included. Analysis of the pooled data did not reveal a significant difference between the two operations regarding CRM positivity [risk ratio (RR) = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.40-1.57; P = 0.50, I(2)  = 86%] and perineal wound complications (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.16; P = 0.44, I(2)  = 49%), and showed a borderline reduced risk of intra-operative bowel perforation for ELAPE, but still did not reveal a significant difference between the two groups (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37-1.00; P = 0.05, I(2)  = 58%).

CONCLUSION

The current evidence does not indicate a statistically significant superiority of ELAPE over conventional APE in terms of CRM positivity and intra-operative bowel perforation.

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).

A comparison of the technical and oncologic validity between robot-assisted and conventional open abdominoperineal resection

PURPOSE

This study was to ascertain whether a robot-assisted (RA) approach to APR might facilitate a cylindrical APR by enabling a deeper pelvic dissection during an abdominal approach, concurrently comparing the feasibility and short-term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Forty-eight consecutive patients with lower rectal cancer who had undergone curative APR (21 RA vs. 27 open) were prospectively enrolled. The short-term operative outcomes and oncologic feasibility were evaluated and compared. A levator muscle excision was performed concomitantly with the abdominal procedure in the RA group and with the perineal procedure in the open group.

RESULTS

No patients in the RA group experienced intraoperative perforation or required conversion to open APR. Overall, a cylindrical APR was performed in 72 % of patients, and subtotal excision of the levator muscle, i.e., either one or both sides of the puborectalis and pubococcygeus muscles, was more likely in the RA group (P = 0.019). A positive CRM was exclusively identified in four open APR patients. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was greater in the RA group (20 vs. 16, P = 0.035). There was no difference in perineal morbidity between the two groups (P = 0.445).

CONCLUSIONS

The RA approach facilitates an efficient excision in the pelvic region than open APR during the abdominal procedure. The RA approach also demonstrated a trend toward improved oncologic outcomes with equivalent postoperative morbidities than with the open approach.

Controversies in abdominoperineal excision

Abdominoperineal excision (APE) is a necessary operation in many patients with low rectal cancer. Outcomes after this procedure, however, have been variable and often suboptimal. With a new concept of APE, three different types of procedures can be described, based on pelvic and pelvic floor anatomy: intersphincteric APE, extralevator APE (ELAPE), and ischioanal APE. Improved outcomes have been reported after ELAPE but the concept is still controversial and there are disagreements related to the extent of pelvic floor removal, positioning of the patient, and methods of pelvic floor reconstruction.

Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of conventional versus extended abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Abdominal perineal excision (APE) was originally described with levator ani removal for rectal cancer. An even wider, more aggressive extralevator resection for APE has been proposed. Although some surgeons are performing a very wide 'extralevator APE (ELAPE)', there are few data to recommend it routinely. This multicentre study aimed to compare outcomes of APE and ELAPE.

METHODS

A multicentre propensity case-matched analysis comparing two surgical approaches (APE and ELAPE) was performed. All patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection of a rectal tumour were considered for the analysis. Tumour height was defined by magnetic resonance imaging measurement and patients with stage II-III tumours had neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Involvement of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) and intraoperative tumour perforation were the main outcome measures. A logistic regression model was used to study the relationship between the surgical approaches and outcomes.

RESULTS

From January 2008 to March 2013 a total of 1909 consecutive patients underwent APE or ELAPE, of whom 914 matched patients (457 in each group) formed the cohort for analysis. Intraoperative tumour perforation occurred in 7.9 and 7.7 per cent of patients during APE and ELAPE respectively (P = 0.902), and there was CRM involvement in 13.1 and 13.6 per cent (P = 0.846). There were no differences between APE and ELAPE in terms of postoperative complication rates (52.3 versus 48.1 per cent; P = 0.209), need for reoperation (7.7 versus 7.0 per cent; P = 0.703), perineal wound problems (26.0 versus 21.9 per cent; P = 0.141), mortality rate (2.0 versus 2.0 per cent; P = 1.000) and local recurrence rate at 2 years (2.7 versus 5.6 per cent; P = 0.664).

CONCLUSION

ELAPE does not improve rates of CRM involvement, intraoperative tumour perforation, local recurrence or mortality.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for rectal cancer--short-term results from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Selective use of ELAPE warranted

PURPOSE

Local recurrences are more common after abdominoperineal excision (APE) than after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Extralevator APE was introduced to address this problem. This prospective registry-based population study aims to investigate the efficacy of extralevator APE (ELAPE) in improving short-term oncological outcome.

METHODS

All Swedish patients operated with any kind of abdominoperineal excision and registered in the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry 2007-2009 were included (n = 1,397) and analyzed with emphasis on the perineal part of the operation. Short-term perioperative and oncological results were collected from the registry.

RESULTS

Extralevator APE did not result in fewer intraoperative perforations or involved circumferential resection margins as compared to standard APE for the entire group. Intraoperative perforations were significantly fewer for patients with low tumours (≤4 cm) (ELAPE: n = 28/386 versus APE: n = 9/58) (p = 0.043) and for early (T0-T2) T-stages (ELAPE: n = 3/172 versus APE: n = 6/75) (p = 0.025). There were significantly more post-operative wound infections for ELAPE than for APE (n = 106 (20.4 %) versus n = 25 (12.0 %), p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term results indicate that selective use of extralevator APE can be warranted, for example, for subgroups with low tumours. In conclusion, selective use of the extralevator APE is advocated as not all patients seem to benefit from the technique, and there are significantly more short-term complications after extralevator APE.

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum: short-term outcomes of a prospective case series

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic approaches for the resection of low rectal cancer and the extralevator technique for abdominoperineal excision are both becoming increasingly popular. There are little published data regarding the combined application of these techniques to the resection of low rectal tumours. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of such an approach and to appraise short-term outcomes in a consecutive series of patients undergoing laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE).

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE at our institution between 2008 and 2011 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. The abdominal phase of the operation was performed laparoscopically, and following extralevator resection, the perineum was reconstructed using a biologic mesh. All patients were enrolled in an enhanced recovery programme.

RESULTS

Of 166 patients undergoing radical resection of rectal cancer at our institution between 2008 and 2011, 28 underwent laparoscopic ELAPE. Median age was 70 years, median body mass index was 27.5 kg/m(2), and 71% were male. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 18%. Three patients (10.8%) had circumferential resection margins <1 mm; no intraoperative tumour perforation occurred. The median length of stay was 7 days, with a 30-day readmission rate of 21% and no 30-day mortality. Post-operative perineal wound complications occurred in 25%. At median 38-month follow-up (range 23-66 months), overall survival was 75%, disease-free survival was 71%, and there were three local recurrences (11%).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision can be safely performed without compromising short-term outcomes.