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

Application of modified extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ELAPE surgery has been carried out in our center for a long time, and some modifications have been made in clinical practice. In this study, we compared conventional ELAPE operation with modified ELAPE operation to investigate the efficacy and safety of modified ELAPE operation.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data from 339 patients with low rectal cancer undergoing abdominoperineal resection from 2017 to 2021 in the Department of General Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University. Patients were classified into modified ELAPE groups (199 patients) and conventional ELAPE groups (140 patients). Total operation time, reconstruction time, postoperative hospital stay, total cost, intraoperative data, postoperative short-term and long-term complications and tumor recurrence were compared.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Total operation time was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (190.6 ± 33.1 min vs 230.1 ± 51.6 min, P = 0.022). Pelvic floor reconstruction time was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (4.3 ± 1.2 min vs 11.9 ± 1.7 min, P = 0.004). Positive CRM was observed in 11 and 9 patients in modified ELAPE groups and conventional ELAPE groups (P = 0.744). IOP occurred in 12 and 7 patients in modified ELAPE group and conventional ELAPE group (P = 0.701). Total cost was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (9004 ± 1146 USD vs 10,336 ± 2047 USD, P = 0.031). The incidence of parastomal hernia was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (7/199 vs 22/140, P < 0.001). Three-year follow-up data did not show any difference in overall survival rate or local occurrence between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Modified ELAPE surgery is technically safe and feasible, and oncologically comparable to that of conventional ELAPE surgery, which can be considered for popularization and application.

Development of a Predictive Nomogram for Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Circumferential resection margin (CRM) is a key quality metric and predictor of oncologic outcomes and overall survival following surgery for rectal cancer. We aimed to develop a nomogram to identify patients at risk for a positive CRM in the preoperative setting.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective evaluation of the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2014 for patients with clinical stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent total mesorectal excision. Patients were excluded for emergency operation, resection for cancer recurrence, palliative resection, transanal resection, and missing CRM status. The primary outcome was positive CRM. Secondary outcomes included overall survival.

RESULTS

There were 28,790 patients included. 2245 (7.8%) had a positive CRM. Higher tumor grade, lack of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, mucinous/signet tumor histology, open approach, abdominoperineal resection, higher T stage, lymphovascular invasion, and perineural invasion were all significantly associated with positive CRM (P < 0.05) and were included in the nomogram. The C-statistic was 0.703, suggesting a good predictive model.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive CRM is associated with specific patient demographics and tumor characteristics. These factors can be used along with preoperative MRI to predict CRM positivity in the preoperative period and plan accordingly.

Efficacy and Safety of Modified Pelvic Peritoneum Reconstruction with Unidirectional Barbed Suture in Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision

Background: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) procedure leaves a large pelvic floor defect, and can result in a high rate of perineal hernia. Pelvic peritoneum reconstruction (PPR) could reduce the rate of perineal hernia. In this article, the authors reconstructed pelvic peritoneum by retracing running sutures with unidirectional barbed thread after laparoscopic ELAPE. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPR by retracing running sutures with unidirectional barbed thread in laparoscopic ELAPE. Materials and Methods: Intact clinical data were collected retrospectively from 27 distal rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic ELAPE. All the patients underwent PPR by retracing running sutures with unidirectional barbed thread in the operation. Pooled data of perineal-related complications were analyzed. Results: After retracing running sutures, the tension of pelvic peritoneum was enhanced. Of the 27 patients included, 2 patients had perineal dehiscence and 1 patient developed bowel obstruction. There were no instances of perineal hernia and pelvic peritoneal internal hernia. Conclusions: PPR by retracing running sutures with unidirectional barbed thread in laparoscopic can reduce the risk of perineal hernia.

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision in distal rectal cancer patients: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

At present, abdominoperineal excision with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is one of the treatment modalities of distal rectal cancer. Our study analyzed the effects of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) compared with laparoscopic conventional abdominoperineal resection(cAPR) in the treatment of distal rectal cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinicopathological data of 177 distal rectal cancer patients treated with a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection between 2011 and 2018. The patients were divided into four groups as follows: ELAPE without nCRT (group A), cAPR without nCRT (group B), ELAPE with long-course nCRT (group C) and cAPR with long-course nCRT (group D).

RESULTS

Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), local recurrence rate, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS) did not differ between group A and group B. The rate of positive CRM in group C was lower than group D (4.4% vs. 11.9%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.377). The 3-year local recurrence rate in group C was lower compared with group D (6.6% vs. 16.7%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.135). Three-year DFS and 3-year OS were not different between groups C and D.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the effect of laparoscopic ELAPE in patients with low-risk rectal cancer is similar to laparoscopic cAPR, revealing that laparoscopic cAPR can be routinely selected for patients with low-risk rectal cancer. Furthermore, laparoscopic ELAPE has a tendency to reduce the rate of positive CRM and local recurrence in patients with high-risk rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ELAPE can be routinely considered for patients with high-risk rectal cancer.

Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision (ELAPE) is Not Superior to Abdominoperineal Excision (APE) in the Era of Neoadjuvant Treatment in Rectal Cancer

Aim: To evaluate the effect of extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (ELAPE) on the circumferential resection margin (CRM) and overall survival in comparison to standard abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APE) in patients with advanced rectal cancer. Material and Methods: This retrospective study encompasses patients with advanced rectal cancer operated on with two different methods: prone Jack-Knife position ELAPE and APE. In part of them, neoadjuvant chemoradiation was conducted. Postoperative patient, tumor, and outcome data were analyzed in terms of differences in CRM positivity and overall survival. Results: Of 67 patients treated with either APE (52) or ELAPE (15), 43 were male and 24 were female. Neoadjuvant treatment was conducted on 49 of the total patients. Complete pathological response (T0) was achieved in 3 patients. Positive CRM was reported in 7 patients (11.5 %), 3 in ELAPE and 4 in APE group (p = 0.348). The overall postoperative complication rate was 56.7%. Mean survival period was 42.2 months. Overall survival rate for both groups was 67.2 %. No statistical differences were seen between the ELAPE and APE procedure in terms of overall survival (p = 0.483). Conclusions: Differences between the use of ELAPE and APE in terms of CRM positivity and overall survival were not statistically significant. Therefore, we conclude that ELAPE is not superior to standard APE in the treatment of advanced rectal cancer.

Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates

Despite innovative advancements, distally located rectal cancer remains a critical disease of challenging management. The crucial location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin (CRM) that tends to involve the anal sphincter complex and surrounding organs, with a high incidence of delayed anastomotic complications and the risk of the pelvic sidewall or rarely inguinal lymph node metastases. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of other issues beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) performance. For decades, the concept of extralevator abdominoperineal resection to avoid compromised CRM has been introduced. However, the complexity of deep pelvic dissection with poor visualization in low-lying rectal cancer has led to transanal TME. In contrast, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise. Significant tumor regression after NCRT and complete pathologic response also permit applying the watch-and-wait protocol in some cases, now with more solid evidence. This review article will introduce the current surgical treatment options, their indication and technical details, and recent oncologic and functional outcomes. Lastly, the novel characteristics of distal rectal cancer, such as pelvic sidewall and inguinal lymph node metastases, will be discussed along with its tailored and individualized treatment approach.

Continuous Negative Pressure Drainage with Intermittent Irrigation Leaded to a Risk Reduction of Perineal Surgical Site Infection Following Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer

Purpose

High rate of perineal surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication following abdominoperineal resection (APR), especially for extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of continuous negative pressure drainage combined with intermittent irrigation (CNPDCII) in the presacral space on the perineal SSI following laparoscopic ELAPE for low rectal cancer.

Patients and Methods

The clinical data of 99 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic ELAPE surgery were retrospectively analyzed. Among the 99 patients, 46 patients received CNPDCII and 53 patients received conventional drainage in the presacral space after ELAPE. Self-made irrigation drainage tube: took a silicone drainage tube, cut 3 side holes at every 2cm intervals at the front end, and fixed a flexible tube of an intravenous needle at the front end of the silicone drainage tube. The conventional drainage tube or self-made irrigation drainage tube was placed in the presacral space and poked out from the inside of the ischial tuberosity. The incidence of SSI and other perioperative indicators between the two groups was compared within 30 days after surgery.

Results

There was no statistical difference in clinicopathological features between the two groups of patients (p>0.05). A statistically lower rate of SSI was found in CNPDCII group (17.4%, 8/46) than the conventional drainage group (35.8%, 19/53). The drainage tube retention time (7.8±1.2 d VS 9.4±1.6 d) and the postoperative hospital stay (9.7±1.4 d VS 11.9±2.3 d) in CNPDCII group were significantly shortened than the conventional drainage group. There was no statistical difference in operating theatre time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed that CNPDCII was an independent protective factor for SSI after ELAPE.

Conclusion

CNPDCII can effectively reduce the incidence of SSI following laparoscopic ELAPE, which is simple, safe and effective.

Meta-analysis of biological mesh reconstruction versus primary perineal closure after abdominoperineal excision of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of rectal cancer has been proposed to achieve better oncological outcomes. The resultant wide perineal wound, however, presents a challenge for primary closure and subsequent wound healing. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of primary perineal closure with those of biological mesh reconstruction.

METHODS

The Medline and Embase search was performed for the publications comparing primary perineal closure to biological mesh reconstruction. Early perineal wound complications (seroma, infection, dehiscence) and late perineal wound complications (perineal hernia, chronic pain, and chronic sinus) were analyzed as primary endpoints. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay were compared as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the overall early wound complications after primary closure or biological mesh reconstruction (odds ratio (OR) of 0.575 with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.241 to 1.373 and a P value of 0.213). The incidence of perineal hernia after 1 year was significantly high after primary closure of the perineal wounds (OR of 0.400 with 95% CI of 0.240 to 0.665 and a P value of 0.001). No significant differences were observed among other early and late perineal wound complications. The operation time and hospital stay were shorter after primary perineal closure (p 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A lower incidence of perineal hernia and comparable early perineal wound complications after biological mesh reconstruction show a relative superiority over primary closure. More randomized studies are required before a routine biological mesh reconstruction can be recommended for closure of perineal wounds after ELAPE.