Extralevator abdominoperineal excision versus conventional surgery for low rectal cancer: a single surgeon experience

Quality assessment of rectal cancer surgery: How are we doing?

INTRODUCTION

Surgery remains a cornerstone in the treatment of rectal cancer. Optimal surgical resection implies respect for carcinologic principles. The best way to evaluate a good quality of resection requires certainly an exhaustive evaluation of the surgical specimen by the surgeon and the pathologist.

AIM

To assess the quality of resected rectal cancers.

METHODS

This study included patients operated on for rectal malignant epithelial tumors, between January 1st, 2015 and December 31st, 2020, in the general surgery department B at Charles Nicolle's Hospital in Tunis. Data relevant to the pathologic examination were recorded. We performed a descriptive study and an analytic bivariate study comparing the two groups "number of lymph nodes harvested less than 12" versus "number of lymph nodes harvested higher than or equal to 12".

RESULTS

Neoadjuvant therapy was performed in 39 patients (79%). Anterior resection (AR) was performed in 43 patients (43%) and abdominoperineal resection (APR) was performed in 11 patients (20%). There were no invaded margins. The mean distal surgical margin was 3±1.4 cm. Mesorectum was complete in 38 surgical specimens (70%). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 14. Resection was considered R0 in 47 patients (87%). In bivariate analysis, there was no difference between the "number of harvested lymph nodes <12" and the "number of harvested lymph nodes ≥ 12"groups for the variables: laparotomy, laparoscopic approach, conversion to laparotomy and chemoradiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Quality of surgical resection of rectal cancer in our department was in accordance with recommendations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

The role of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for distal rectal cancer remains controversial, and the procedure is not widely accepted or practiced.

METHODS

An electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and similar databases for articles in English was performed from the inception of the study until October 31, 2017. Two reviewers extracted information and independently assessed the quality of included studies by the methodological index for nonrandomized studies, then data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 software and Stata version 12.0 software.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 17 studies with 3479 patients, of whom 1915 (55.0%) underwent ELAPE and 1564 (44.0%) underwent abdominoperineal excision (APE). Compared with patients undergoing APE, patients undergoing ELAPE had a significant reduced risk of no more than 3 years local recurrence (LR) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08-0.94), 3-year mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.20-0.97), intraoperative bowel perforation (IBP) involvement (RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.31-0.74), and circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.43-1.00) at the threshold level.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of ELAPE is more effective in reducing the chance of 3 years LR, mortality, IBP involvement and CRM positivity than conventional APE, and worthy of being widely applied in surgical treatment of the distal rectal cancer.