Extended abdominoperineal excision vs. standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer--a systematic overview

Dentate line invasion is a risk factor for locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis following abdominoperineal resection in rectal cancer: a single-centre retrospective cohort study based on 1854 cases

BACKGROUND

In the context of surgical treatment for rectal cancer, the dentate line is acknowledged as a critical anatomical landmark. However, the prognostic implications of dentate line invasion (DLI) remain elusive and warrant further investigation. This study aims to evaluate and compare the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR), distinguishing between those with and without DLI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2017, this study enrolled 1854 patients with rectal cancer who underwent APR. The cohort was divided into two groups, namely the DLI group (n = 340) and the non-DLI group (n = 1514). The primary endpoints were distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the impact of DLI on DRFS, LRFS, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

The median follow-up duration for the patients was 92.9 months, with a 5-year OS rate of 92.0% for the entire cohort. Compared to the non-DLI group, patients in the DLI group showed significantly poorer outcomes, with 5-year DRFS at 57.4% vs. 73.9% (P < 0.001), DFS at 51.2% vs. 70.7% (P < 0.001), and LRFS at 71.7% vs. 88.5% (P = 0.018). OS was the only metric that showed no significant difference(89.0% vs. 92.6%, P = 0.064). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that DLI negatively impacted DRFS (hazard ratio HR 1.319, P = 0.029), LRFS (HR 2.059, P < 0.001), and DFS (HR 1.563, P < 0.001) as an independent prognostic factor. Furthermore, distant metastasis occurred more frequently in the DLI group (30.0% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.002), along with a higher rate of locoregional recurrence. (16.8% vs. 8.3%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

DLI correlates with a heightened likelihood of locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis among rectal cancer patients treated with APR. This association underscores the significance of DLI as a crucial prognostic factor that should be considered when developing clinical management strategies.

MRI navigation surgery for T4b rectal cancer using multiple minimally invasive surgical approaches

BACKGROUND

These days, various surgical techniques such as trans-anal, trans-perineal total mesorectal excision, and transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery have been utilized with flexibility, which was not possible before the laparoscopic era.

METHODS

From January 2014 to January 2023, 40 cases of c(yc)T4b rectal cancer underwent local curative surgery laparoscopically at Kansai Medical University Hospital. In 25 consecutive cases, we adopted multiple approaches (trans-anal total mesorectal excision, transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, trans-perineal total mesorectal excision, or prone position first abdominoperineal excision) to remove the deepest part of the tumor indicated by MRI last as the specimen-oriented surgery. The remaining 15 patients underwent top-to-bottom surgery based on standard surgery. The primary endpoint was the local recurrence rate of the specimen-oriented surgery group compared to that of the standard surgery group.

RESULTS

The specimen-oriented surgery group had a median follow-up of 3.9 (0.4-7.4) years with no local recurrence, while the standard surgery group had a median follow-up of 1.5 (0.7-3.7) years with 5 of 15 patients (33%) experiencing more local recurrence than specimen-oriented surgery group (p = 0.005). Comparison of the local recurrence ( +) and ( -) groups showed significant differences in pCRM positive rate, neoadjuvant therapy, tumor size, and approach (specimen-oriented surgery vs. standard surgery) in univariate analysis (p < 0.05). Still, no significant differences were found in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In the laparoscopic setting, local cure of c(yc)T4b rectal cancer requires a different strategy than open surgery, and specimen-oriented surgery may be a promising procedure.

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.

Outcomes and Cost Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopy for abdominoperineal resection has been well defined, the literature lacks comparative studies on robotic abdominoperineal resection. Because robotic abdominoperineal resections typically do not require splenic mobilization or an anastomosis for reconstruction, the mean console time is expected to be shorter than low anterior resection. We hypothesized that robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection would provide similar oncologic and financial outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to compare the perioperative, oncologic, and economic outcomes of the robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective, case-matched patient cohort.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

This study included all patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic abdominoperineal resections between January 2008 and April 2017; they were case-matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age ±5 years, BMI ±3 kg/m 2 , and sex criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perioperative, oncologic, and economic (including survival) outcomes were compared. Because of institutional policy, actual cost values are presented as the lowest direct cost value as "100%," and other values are presented as proportional to the index value.

RESULTS

We examined 68 patients (34 in each group). Both groups had similar preoperative characteristics, including preoperative chemoradiation rates. Operative time (319 vs 309 min), length of stay (7.2 vs 7.4 d), postoperative complications (38.2% vs 41.2%), conversion to open (5 vs 4), complete mesorectal excision (76.4% vs 79.4%), radial margin involvement (2.9% vs 8.9%), and direct hospital cost parameters (mean difference 26%, median difference 43%) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection groups, respectively (all p > 0.05). Local recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates (85.3% vs 76.5%) were also similar after 22 months of follow-up between the groups.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and the variety in concomitant procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic abdominoperineal resections provided in carefully matched patients with rectal cancer showed similar perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes compared to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections. Our study was not powered to detect a significant increase in cost with robotic abdominoperineal resections. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 .

RESULTADOS Y ANLISIS DE COSTO DE LA RESECCIN ABDOMINOPERINEAL LAPAROSCPICA VS LA ROBTICA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO ESTUDIO DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS

ANTECEDENTES:Si bien la resección abdominoperineal laparoscópica está bien definida, la literatura carece de estudios comparativos sobre la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Dado que las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas generalmente no requieren movilización esplénica o una anastomosis en casos de reconstrucción, se supone que el tiempo medio en la consola sea más corto que durante una resección anterior baja. Hipotéticamente las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas y laparoscópicas nos proporcionarían resultados oncológicos y económicos similares.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos de la resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica.DISEÑO:Esta fue una cohorte de pacientes retrospectiva, emparejada por casos.AJUSTE:Estudio realizado en un centro de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resecciones abdominoperineales LAParoscópicas o ROBóticas entre Enero de 2008 y Abril de 2017 fueron identificados y emparejados según la edad ±5, el IMC ±3 y los criterios de sexo en una proporción de 1:1.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se compararon los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos (incluida la sobrevida). Debido a la política institucional, los valores de costos reales se presentan como el valor de costo directo más bajo al 100% y los otros valores se presentan como proporcionales al valor índice.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron 68 pacientes (LAP-34 y ROB-34). Ambos grupos tenían características preoperatorias similares, incluidas las tasas de radio-quimioterapia pre-operatoria. Los tiempos operatorios fueron de 319 y 309 minutos, la estadía hospitalaria de 7 días en los dos grupos, las complicaciones post-operatorias fueron de 38,2% LAP frente a 41,2% ROB, la tasa de conversion fué de 5 a 4, la excisión total del mesorrecto de 76,4% frente a 79,4%, la resección radial con afectación de los márgenes de 2,9% frente a 8,9% y los parámetros de costes hospitalarios directos (diferencia de medias 26%, diferencia de medianas 43%) fueron comparables entre los grupos, de resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica, respectivamente (todos p > 0,05). Las tasas de recurrencia local, sobrevida libre de enfermedad y sobrevida general (85,3% frente a 76,5%) también fueron similares después de 22 meses de seguimiento entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza retrospectiva y la variedad de procedimientos concomitantes fueron las principales limitaciones de este estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas proporcionaron resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a corto plazo similares en pacientes con cáncer de recto cuidadosamente emparejados en comparación con las resecciones abdominoperineales laparoscópicas. Nuestro estudio no fue diseñado para detectar un aumento significativo en el costo relacionado con la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Dataset for Pathology Reporting of Colorectal Cancer: Recommendations From the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study to describe a new international dataset for pathology reporting of colorectal cancer surgical specimens, produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).

BACKGROUND

Quality of pathology reporting and mutual understanding between colorectal surgeon, pathologist and oncologist are vital to patient management. Some pathology parameters are prone to variable interpretation, resulting in differing positions adopted by existing national datasets.

METHODS

The ICCR, a global alliance of major pathology institutions with links to international cancer organizations, has developed and ratified a rigorous and efficient process for the development of evidence-based, structured datasets for pathology reporting of common cancers. Here we describe the production of a dataset for colorectal cancer resection specimens by a multidisciplinary panel of internationally recognized experts.

RESULTS

The agreed dataset comprises eighteen core (essential) and seven non-core (recommended) elements identified from a review of current evidence. Areas of contention are addressed, some highly relevant to surgical practice, with the aim of standardizing multidisciplinary discussion. The summation of all core elements is considered to be the minimum reporting standard for individual cases. Commentary is provided, explaining each element's clinical relevance, definitions to be applied where appropriate for the agreed list of value options and the rationale for considering the element as core or non-core.

CONCLUSIONS

This first internationally agreed dataset for colorectal cancer pathology reporting promotes standardization of pathology reporting and enhanced clinicopathological communication. Widespread adoption will facilitate international comparisons, multinational clinical trials and help to improve the management of colorectal cancer globally.

Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Single Specialized Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Randomized studies have validated laparoscopic proctectomy for the treatment of rectal cancer as noninferior to an open proctectomy, but most of those studies have included sphincter-preserving resections along with abdominoperineal resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between minimally invasive and open abdominoperineal resection.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in a single specialized colorectal surgery department.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer between 2000 and 2016 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 452 patients, 372 in the open group and 80 in the minimally invasive group, with a median follow-up time of 74 months. There were significant differences between the groups in terms of neoadjuvant radiation treatment (67.5% of the open versus 81.3% of the minimally invasive group, p = 0.01), operative time (mean of 200 minutes versus 287 minutes, p < 0.0001), and mean length of stay (9.5 days versus 6.6 days, p < 0.0001). Overall complication rates were similar between the groups (34.5% versus 27.5%, p = 0.177). There were no significant differences in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested (21.7 versus 22.2 nodes, p = 0.7), circumferential radial margins (1.48 cm versus 1.37 cm, p = 0.4), or in the rate of involved radial margins (10.8% versus 6.3%, p = 0.37). Five-year overall survival was 70% in the open group versus 80% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.344), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate in the open group was 63.2% versus 77.6% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.09).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited because it describes a single referral institution experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both approaches have similar perioperative outcomes, the minimally invasive approach benefits the patients with a shorter length of stay and a lower risk for surgical wound infections. Both approaches yield similar oncological technical quality in terms of the lymph nodes harvested and margins status, and they have comparable long-term oncological outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754.RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE LA RESECCIÓN ABDOMINOPERINEAL MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVA VERSUS ABIERTA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: EXPERIENCIA DE UN SOLO CENTRO ESPECIALIZADOANTECEDENTES:Estudios aleatorizados han validado la proctectomía laparoscópica para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto igual a la proctectomía abierta, pero la mayoría de esos estudios han incluido resecciones con preservación del esfínter junto con resección abdominoperineal.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo entre la resección abdominoperineal abierta y mínimamente invasiva.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos mantenida de forma prospectiva.ENTORNO CLINICO:Servicio único especializado en cirugía colorrectal.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resección abdominoperineal por cáncer de recto primario entre 2000 y 2016.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 452 pacientes, 372 en el grupo abierto y 80 en el grupo mínimamente invasivo, con una mediana de seguimiento de 74 meses. Hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en términos de tratamiento con radiación neoadyuvante (67,5% del grupo abierto versus 81,3% del grupo mínimamente invasivo, p = 0,01), tiempo operatorio (media de 200 minutos versus 287 minutos, p < 0,0001) y la duración media de la estancia (9,5 días frente a 6,6 días, p < 0,0001). Las tasas generales de complicaciones fueron similares entre los grupos (34,5% versus 27,5%, p = 0,177). No hubo diferencias significativas en el número medio de ganglios linfáticos extraídos (21,7 versus 22,2 ganglios, p = 0,7), márgenes radiales circunferenciales (1,48 cm y 1,37 cm, p = 0,4), ni en la tasa de márgenes radiales afectados (10,8 cm). % versus 6,3%, p = 0,37). La supervivencia general a 5 años fue del 70% en el grupo abierto frente al 80% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,344), mientras que la tasa de supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años en el grupo abierto fue del 63,2% frente al 77,6% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,09).LIMITACIONES:Experiencia en una institución de referencia única.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien ambos tienen resultados perioperatorios similares, el enfoque mínimamente invasivo, beneficia a los pacientes con estadía más corta y menor riesgo de infecciones de la herida quirúrgica. Ambos enfoques, producen una calidad técnica oncológica similar en términos de ganglios linfáticos extraídos y estado de los márgenes, y tienen resultados oncológicos comparables a largo plazo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754. (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Surgical Techniques for Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: One Size Does Not Fit All

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer is associated with poorer oncological outcomes than anterior resection. This may be due to higher rates of intra-operative perforation (IOP) and circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement causing higher recurrence rates and surgical complications. To address these concerns, several centers advocated a change in technique from a standard APR to a more radical extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). Initial reports showed that ELAPE reduced IOP rates and CRM involvement but increased wound complications and longer surgical duration. However, many of these studies had unacceptable rates of IOP and CRM before retraining in ELAPE. This may indicate that it was a sub-optimal surgical technique, which improved upon training, that had influenced the high CRM and IOP rates rather than the technique itself. Subsequent studies demonstrated that the CRM involvement rate for ELAPE was not always lower than for standard APR and, in some cases, significantly higher. The morbidity of ELAPE can be high, with studies reporting higher adverse events than APR, especially in terms of wound complications from the larger perineal incision required in ELAPE. Whether ELAPE improves short- or long-term oncological outcomes for patients has not been clearly demonstrated. The authors propose that all centers performing rectal cancer surgery audit surgical outcomes of patients undergoing APR or ELAPE and examine CRM involvement, IOP rates, and local recurrence rates, preferably through a national body. If rates of adverse technical or oncological outcomes exceed acceptable levels, then retraining in the appropriate surgical techniques may be indicated.

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.

Perineal wound complication risk factors and effects on survival after abdominoperineal resection of rectal cancer: a single-centre retrospective study

PURPOSE

This study determined the risk factors associated with perineal wound complications (PWCs) and investigated their effect on overall survival in patients with rectal cancer who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR).

METHODS

The clinicopathologic and follow-up data of patients who underwent APR for primary rectal cancer between 1998 and 2018 were reviewed. PWCs were defined as any perineal wound that required surgical intervention, antibiotics, or delayed healing for more than 2 weeks. The primary objective was identifying the risk factors of PWC after APR. The effect of PWC on survival was also investigated as a secondary objective.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty patients were included in the final analyses and 49 had PWCs. An operative time of > 285 min (odds ratio: 2.440, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.257-4.889) was found to be independently associated with PWCs. When the follow-up time was > 60 months, patients with PWCs had a significantly lower overall survival rate than patients without PWC (n = 156; mean over survival: 187 and 164 months in patients without and with PWCs, respectively; P = 0.045). Poor differentiation (hazard ratio (HR): 1.893, 95% CI: 1.127-3.179), lymph node metastasis (HR: 2.063, 95% CI: 1.228-3.467), and distant metastasis (HR: 3.046, 95% CI: 1.551-5.983) were associated with poor prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged operative time increases the risk of PWCs, and patients with PWCs have a lower long-term survival rate than patients without PWCs. Therefore, surgeons should aim to reduce the operative time to minimise the risk of PWC in patients undergoing APR for rectal cancer.

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.

Cylindrical abdominoperineal resection rationale, technique and controversies

Surgery remains the cornerstone in rectal cancer treatment. Abdominoperineal excision (APE), described more than 100 years ago, remains as an important procedure for the treatment of selected advanced distal tumors with direct invasion of the anal sphincter or preoperative fecal incontinence. Historically, oncological outcomes of patients undergoing APE have been worse when compared to sphincter preserving operations. More recently, it has been suggested that patients undergoing APE for distal rectal cancer are more likely to have positive circumferential resection margins and intraoperative perforation, known surrogate markers for local recurrence. Recently, an alternative approach known as “Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision” has been described in an effort to improve rates of circumferential margin positivity possibly resulting in better oncological outcomes compared to the standard procedure. The objective of this paper is to provide a technical description and compare available data of both Extralevator and Standard abdominal perineal excision techniques.

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.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Extralevaor Abdominoperineal Excision for Lower Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Single Institute

Background: To explore the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (La-ELAPE) and open extralevator abdominoperineal excision (Op-ELAPE) for patients with lower rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: Consecutive 101 patients with lower rectal cancer who underwent La-ELAPE or Op-ELAPE in our institution from January 2014 and May 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients' clinicopathological data and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: A total of 101 patients were enrolled in the study, 43 (42.6%) patients successfully underwent La-ELAPE and 58 (57.4%) Op-ELAPE. The Op-ELAPE group had more intraoperative blood loss (P = .03), and longer postoperative hospital stay (P = .01) compared with the La-ELAPE group. There were no significant differences between the two group in terms of the operation time (P = .08), circumferential resection margin positivity (P = 1.00), intraoperative perforation (P = .73), and number of positive lymph nodes (P = .91). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications such as colostomy-associated issues (P = .79), intestinal obstruction (P = 1.00), urinary retention (P = 1.00), perineal wound complications (P = .64), and chronic perineal pain (P = .70) between the two groups. According to the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log rank test, the overall survival rate and progression-free survival rate between the two groups also showed no significant difference. Conclusion: This study showed that La-ELAPE significantly reduced the intraoperative blood loss and the postoperative hospital stay without increasing postoperative morbidity for patients with lower rectal cancer when compared with Op-ELAPE. It suggests that La-ELAPE is safe and effective for patients with lower rectal cancer. For the experienced endoscopic surgeons, the La-ELAPE might be an alternative surgical treatment.

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.

Biological mesh used to repair perineal hernias following abdominoperineal resection for anorectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the outcome for patients who had undergone perineal hernia repair, via a perineal approach, using a biological mesh post-abdominoperineal excision (APE) for anorectal cancer.

METHOD

All consecutive patients having undergone perineal hernia repair involving an extracellular matrix of porcine small intestinal submucosa at our hospital between 2015 and 2018 were included. Follow-up clinical examinations and computed tomography scans were performed.

RESULTS

Six patients were treated surgically for symptomatic perineal hernia after a median of 31 months from APE. The median follow-up after hernia repair was 11 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6-35 months). Three patients (50%) developed a recurrent perineal hernia after a median interval of 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Perineal hernia repair using a biological mesh resulted in a high recurrence rate in patients who had undergone APE for anorectal cancer.

[Evidence-based surgery of rectal cancer]

Over the past four decades, the treatment algorithms for rectal cancer have fundamentally changed, which resulted in a considerable improvement of oncological outcomes. In this context, the surgical concept of total mesorectal excision and the implementation of multimodal treatment strategies represent key milestones. These improvements were complemented by a standardized histopathological work-up of the surgical specimen and the introduction of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnostics. In addition, novel surgical techniques have been introduced, such as laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection. Other technological innovations include intraoperative pelvic neuromonitoring and fluorescence imaging. This review highlights the current evidence for selected, sometimes controversially discussed principles of surgical treatment strategies in rectal cancer.

Primary vs myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects following abdominoperineal resection for colorectal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection (APR) have become a major clinical challenge. Myocutaneous flap closure has been proposed in place of primary closure to improve wound healing. We conducted this comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the current scientific evidence of primary closure vs myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects following APR for colorectal disease.

METHODS

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases to identify all relevant studies. After data extraction from the included studies, meta-analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes of primary closure and myocutaneous flap closure.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with a total of 17 913 patients (16 346 primary closure vs 1567 myocutaneous flap closure) were included. We found that primary closure was significantly associated with higher total perineal wound complications (P = 0.007), major perineal wound complications (P < 0.001) and perineal wound infection (P = 0.001). On the other hand, myocutaneous flap closure takes more operation time (P < 0.001) and increases the risk of perineal wound dehiscence (P = 0.01), deep surgical site infection (P < 0.001), enterocutaneous fistulas (P = 0.03) and return to the operating room (P = 0.0005). There were no significant differences between the two groups for other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis comparing primary closure with myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects after APR for colorectal disease. Although taking more operation time and an increased risk of specific complications, the pooled results have validated the use of myocutaneous flaps for reducing total/major perineal wound complications. More investigations are needed to draw definitive conclusions on this dilemma.

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.

Surgical outcome after standard abdominoperineal resection: A 15-year cohort study from a single cancer centre

BACKGROUND

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is associated with a poorer oncological outcome than anterior resection. This may be due to higher rates of intra-operative perforation and circumferential resection margin involvement. The aim of this study was to audit our short and long-term results of abdominoperineal resection performed using conventional techniques and to compare this with other published series.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who had standard APR between January 2000 and December 2016 in a single institution, Cabrini Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. A total of 163 cases performed by nine different colorectal surgeons for primary rectal adenocarcinoma were identified, with their clinicopathological data analysed.

RESULTS

Using standard APR, only six patients (3.7%) were found to have a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM). There were two cases of intra-operative perforation (1.2%). Local recurrence rate was 5.6% of patients, with distant recurrence found in 24.9%. Disease-free survival at five years was 73.1%. Five-year overall survival was 66.7%, 67.9% of all deaths were cancer-related.

CONCLUSION

Short and long-term outcomes after standard APR in this study were comparable to previous published studies. The CRM rate of 3.7% compares favourably to published positive CRM rates for standard APR which ranged from 6 to 18%. Standard APR remains a viable technique for the treatment of rectal cancer. Patient selection and adequate training remain important factors.

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.

Are Colon and Rectal Cancer Two Different Tumor Entities? A Proposal to Abandon the Term Colorectal Cancer

Colon cancer (CC) and rectal cancer (RC) are synonymously called colorectal cancer (CRC). Based on our experience in basic and clinical research as well as routine work in the field, the term CRC should be abandoned. We analyzed the available data from the literature and results from our multicenter Research Group Oncology of Gastrointestinal Tumors termed FOGT to confirm or reject this hypothesis. Anatomically, the risk of developing RC is four times higher than CC, while physical activity helps to prevent CC but not RC. Obvious differences exist in molecular carcinogenesis, pathology, surgical topography and procedures, and multimodal treatment. Therefore, we conclude that CC is not the same as RC. The term "CRC" should no longer be used as a single entity in basic and clinical research as well as other areas of classification.

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.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer with biological mesh for pelvic floor reconstruction

Goal

To share our experience of extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer, focusing on perineal repair with biological mesh.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed medical records of all patients with low rectal cancer who underwent the ELAPE procedure using biological mesh for perineal repair at the Gastrointestinal Surgery of Nanjing Drum Power Hospital between January 2013 and September 2015. All patients were closely followed up to now.

Results

A total of 17 patients underwent ELAPE for low rectal cancer was screened. Of these, 15 patients had primary rectal cancer, 1 had local recurrent rectal cancer, and 1 had malignant melanoma. All patients underwent ELAPE successfully without intestinal perforation and got stage I healing in perineum wound without incision infection, dehiscence, cystocele perinealis, urethral dysfunction or intestinal obstruction. Perineum wound hematoma developed in just one patient and had successful percutaneous drainage in one week. During the follow-up, there was no recurrence, perineal hernia, sexual dysfunction, urinary retention, or bowel obstruction. Two patients described slight pain in the sacrococcygeal region without special handling.

Conclusion

ELAPE is applicable to low rectal cancer. Biological mesh reconstruction of perineal defect seems to be safe and effective, with high patient compliance.

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.

Robotic Site Adjusted Levator Transection for Carcinoma of the Rectum: A Modification of the Existing Cylindrical Abdominoperineal Resection for Eccentrically Located Tumors

BACKGROUND

Today, extralevator abdominoperineal resection is the standard of care for low rectal cancers with sphincter involvement or location precluding anastomosis. This procedure, while effective from an oncologic point of view, is morbid, with a high incidence of wound complications and genitourinary, and sexual dysfunction. We present a modification of this procedure via a robotic approach, which maintains the radicality while reducing the soft tissue loss and potentially the morbidity.

METHODS

Over a 2-year period, five patients (four men and one woman) with eccentric low rectal cancers following neoadjuvant chemoradiation underwent a robot-assisted modified abdominoperineal resection with wide levator transection on the tumor side and conservative levator division on the opposite side. These patients were prospectively followed. Perioperative outcomes, pathologic specimen measures, wound-related problems, and local and systemic recurrences were documented and analyzed.

RESULTS

All procedures were successfully completed without conversion. Average body mass index was 32 kg/m². The mean operative time and blood loss were 370 min and 130 ml, respectively. All specimens had an intact mesorectal envelope with no tumor perforations, and the mean lymph node yield was 16. There were no urinary complications or perineal wound infections. At a median follow-up of 14 months, all patients remain disease-free.

CONCLUSIONS

Modified robotic cylindrical abdominoperineal resection with site adjusted levator transection for rectal cancer is an oncologically sound operation in eccentrically located tumors. It maintains the radicality of conventional extralevator abdominoperineal resection, while also reducing the soft tissue loss and thereby potentially the morbidity.

Abdominoperineal Excision: Technical Challenges in Optimal Surgical and Oncological Outcomes after Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Treatment results in rectal cancer have improved significantly during the recent two decades, but local control and survival after abdominoperineal excision (APE) have not improved to the same degree as that seen after anterior resection (AR). The reason for this is an increased risk of inadvertent bowel perforations and tumor involved margins after APE as compared with AR. The conventional synchronous combined APE has not been a standardized procedure and consequently oncological outcomes have varied considerably between different institutions and in different reports. With the new concept of APE, based on well-defined anatomical structures, the procedure can be categorized as intersphincteric APE, extralevator APE, and ischioanal APE. This article discusses the technical aspects and results from this approach.

Primary vs. delayed perineal proctectomy-there is no free lunch

PURPOSE

Perineal wound complications associated with anorectal excision are associated with prolonged wound healing and readmission. In order to avoid these problems, the surgeon may choose to leave the anorectum in situ. The purpose of this study is to compare complications and outcomes after primary vs. delayed anorectum removal.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing proctectomy or proctocolectomy with permanent stoma between 2004 and 2014 in a single tertiary institution was conducted.

RESULTS

During the study period, we identified 117 proctectomy patients; 69 (59%) patients had anorectum removed at index operation and 41% had the anorectum left in place. Patients with retained anorectum developed pelvic abscess significantly more frequently as compared to the other group (23 vs. 4%, p = 0.003). In patients with primary anorectum removal, 22 (32%) had perineal complications and 10 (15%) required reoperations. In patients with retained anorectum, 12 patients (25%) came back for delayed perineal proctectomy at a mean time of 277 days after the index operation; 7 of those (58%) developed postoperative wound complications. There was no difference in time to perineal wound healing between primary and delayed perineal proctectomy group (154 vs. 211 days, p = 0.319).

CONCLUSION

Surgery involving the distal rectum is associated with a significant number of infectious perineal complications. Although leaving the anorectum in place avoids a primary perineal wound, both approaches are associated with a significant number of complications including reoperation.

A pilot randomized study comparing extralevator with conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation

AIM

The aims of this study were to assess the feasibility of performing an extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT), to compare the rates of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and intra-operative perforation (IOP) of the specimen, and to assess the amount of tissue removed around the muscularis propria (MP)/internal sphincter (IS) of the lower rectum in patients with low rectal cancer undergoing ELAPE compared with conventional abdominoperineal excision (CAPE) after NCRT.

METHOD

This was an open-label, parallel-arm pilot randomized trial conducted in India. Twenty patients were randomized to one of the study arms. The surgical specimens were fixed, serially cross-sectioned and photographed. Using specialized morphometry software, the amount of tissue resected with each operation was measured.

RESULTS

There was a nonsignificant trend towards more IOPs (30% vs 0%, P = 0.06) and a higher CRM involvement rate (40% vs 20%, P = 0.32) in the CAPE arm. ELAPE removed a significantly greater amount of tissue around the IS/MP when compared with CAPE (mean ± SD: 1911.39 ± 382 mm² vs 1132.03 ± 371 mm² , P < 0.001). The mean distance from the IS/MP to the CRM was significantly greater in the ELAPE arm both in the posterior (mean ± SD: 28.28 ± 3 mm vs 9.63 ± 3 mm, P < 0.001) and lateral (mean ± SD: 13.69 ± 3 mm vs 9.72 ± 3 mm, P = 0.009) parts of the rectum but not in the anterior part (mean ± SD: 6.74 ± 2 mm vs 6.10 ± 4 mm, P = 0.64). The short-term morbidity was not significantly different between the two procedures.

CONCLUSION

ELAPE removed more tissue in the lower rectum and resulted in a lower rate of IOP and CRM involvement when compared with CAPE, even after NCRT.

[Pathology of the R1 classification in visceral cancer surgery]

The completeness of tumor removal is described in the residual tumor classification (R classification). The R category of a surgical specimen reflects the effects of treatment, influences further treatment decisions and is associated with patient survival. Thorough pathological examination of all resection planes, including the circumferential margin, is necessary for accurate classification.

A Systematic Review to Assess Resection Margin Status After Abdominoperineal Excision and Pelvic Exenteration for Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess resection margin status and its impact on survival after abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Resection margin is important to guide therapy and to evaluate patient prognosis.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of resection margin status on survival, and a regression analysis to analyze positive resection margin rates reported in the literature.

RESULTS

The analysis included 111 studies reporting on 19,607 participants after abdominoperineal excision, and 30 studies reporting on 1326 participants after pelvic exenteration. The positive resection margin rates for abdominoperineal excision were 14.7% and 24.0% for pelvic exenteration. The overall survival and disease-free survival rates were significantly worse for patients with positive compared with negative resection margins after abdominoperineal excision [hazard ratio (HR) 2.64, P < 0.01; HR 3.70, P < 0.01, respectively] and after pelvic exenteration (HR 2.23, P < 0.01; HR 2.93, P < 0.01, respectively). For patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision with positive resection margins, the reported tumor sites were 57% anterior, 15% posterior, 10% left or right lateral, 8% circumferential, 10% unspecified. A significant decrease in positive resection margin rates was identified over time for abdominoperineal excision. Although positive resection margin rates did not significantly change with the size of the study, some small size studies reported higher than expected positive resection margin rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Resection margin status influences survival and a multidisciplinary approach in experienced centers may result in reduced positive resection margins. For advanced anterior rectal cancer, posterior pelvic exenteration instead of abdominoperineal excision may improve resection margins.

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

AIM

A randomized controlled trial was conducted to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in circumferential resection margin (CRM) between extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE for rectal cancer.

METHOD

This was a multicentre, randomized controlled trial registered as NCT01702116. Patients with rectal cancer involving the external anal sphincter were randomized to ELAPE or non-ELAPE following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Randomization was performed according to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. The primary end-point was CRM (in mm), defined as the shortest distance between the tumour and the cut edge of the specimen. Pathologists and centralized pathology were blinded to the patients' study arm. Interrater reliability (IRR) was assessed using Kendall's coefficient. Intra-operative perforation (IOP) was any rectal defect determined at pathology. Complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Participating surgeons were retrained and credentialed. A sample size calculation showed that 34 subjects would provide sufficient power to reject the null hypothesis.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients underwent the allocated intervention. Seventeen patients treated with ELAPE were comparable with 17 patients treated with non-ELAPE regarding age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class and pre-existing comorbidities. CRM depth (7.14 ± 5.76 mm vs 2.98 ± 3.28 mm, P = 0.016) and involvement rates (5.8% vs 41.0%, P = 0.04) were significantly increased in patients treated with ELAPE. The IRR for CRM was 0.78. There were no significant differences in IOP (5.8% vs 11.7%, P = 0.77) and complication rates (29% vs 29%, P = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

ELAPE was associated with statistically improved CRM with no difference in IOP and complication rates compared with non-ELAPE for rectal cancer involving the external anal sphincter.

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.

Utility of indocyanine-green fluorescent imaging during robot-assisted sphincter-saving surgery on rectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

There have been few studies describing the use of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescent imaging during robot-assisted (RA) sphincter-saving operations (SSOs) and assessing its potential role in reducing anastomotic leak (AL).

METHODS

A consecutive cohort of 436 rectal cancer patients who underwent curative RA SSOs were prospectively enrolled during 2010-2014, including 123 patients with ICG imaging (ICG+ group) and 313 patients without ICG imaging (ICG- group).

RESULTS

ICG imaging appeared to be helpful in identifying competent perfusion of the bowel adjacent to the anastomosis in 13 patients (10.6%) who might be susceptible to bowel ischaemia, including restrictive mesocolon. AL was remarkably greater in the ICG- group compared with the ICG+ group (5.4% vs 0.8%; p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

ICG imaging during RA SSO provides accurate real-time knowledge of the perfusion status at or near the anastomosis, specifically reducing AL in patients who may incur bowel ischaemia. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Novel technique of robotic extralevator abdominoperineal resection with gracilis flap closure

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a robotic assisted approach to extralevator abdominoperineal excision in the modified Lloyd-Davis position with reconstruction of the perineum using pedicled gracilis flaps, and to discuss outcomes in a cohort of six patients.

METHODS

Data was collected by chart review on six patients who underwent extralevator excision with gracilis flap reconstruction from 10/2013 to 06/2015. Technical details, operative data, oncologic outcomes, and wound healing complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were no instances of intraoperative perforation or positive circumferential resection margin, and one case of locoregional recurrence. Two patients experienced flap venous congestion and one patient developed a perineal abscess. All patients went on to complete healing.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of a minimally invasive robotic assisted extralevator abdominoperineal excision performed in the modified Lloyd-Davis position with reconstruction of the perineum with pedicled gracilis flaps has excellent oncologic outcomes and acceptable wound healing complications. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. StartCopTextCopyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The use of a negative pressure wound management system in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative pressure system has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone 'standard' abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds.

METHODS

Prospective data on consecutive patients having ELAPE in the period from November 2012 to April 2015 were collected. The pelvic floor defect was reconstructed with biologic mesh. The adipose tissue layer was closed with vicryl sutures, a suction drain was left in the deep layer, the subcuticular layer and skin were closed, and the negative pressure system was applied. Any wound breakdown within the first 30 days postoperatively was recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 32 consecutive ELAPE patients whose perineal wounds were closed within 30 days with the use of the negative pressure system, there was 1 patient with major perineal wound breakdown and 2 patients with a 1 cm superficial wound defect, which needed no further treatment. In the remaining 29 (90 %) patients, the perineal wounds healed fully without complications. Twenty-five patients underwent standard APR in 2010-2011 with primary closure of their perineal wounds. Ten out of 25(40 %) of patients who had undergone standard APR and primary closure of perineal wounds had major wound complications (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that after ELAPE the application of a negative pressure system to the perineal wound closed with biologic mesh may reduce perineal wound complications and may reduce the need for major perineal reconstruction.

Robot-Assisted Abdominoperineal Resection: Clinical, Pathologic, and Oncologic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The extralevator approach to abdominoperineal resection is associated with a decreased incidence of rectal perforation and circumferential resection margin positivity translating to lower recurrence rates. The abdominoperineal resection, as such, is an operation associated with poorer outcomes in comparison with low anterior resections, and any improvements in short-term outcomes are likely to be related to surgical technique. Robot assistance in extralevator abdominoperineal resection has shown improvement in these pathologic outcomes. Because these are surrogate markers for local recurrence and disease-free survival, long-term survival data are needed to assess the efficacy of this robot-assisted technique, exclusively in a dedicated abdominoperineal resection cohort.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes of the robot-assisted extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This study was a review of a prospective database of patients over a 5-year period.

SETTING

Procedures were performed in the colorectal division of a tertiary hospital from April 2007 to July 2012.

PATIENTS

Patients with rectal cancer were operated on robotically. Indications for abdominoperineal resection were low rectal cancers invading the sphincter complex or location in the anal canal precluding anastomosis.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients received a robot-assisted extralevator abdominoperineal resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative and perioperative measures, pathologic outcomes, and disease-free survival and overall survival were documented and assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (15 men) with a mean age of 65.5 years and mean BMI of 28.6 kg/m underwent robotic abdominoperineal resection. Circumferential resection margin was positive in 13.6%. There was 1 tumor/rectal perforation. At a mean follow-up of 33.9 months, overall survival was 81.8% with a disease-free survival of 72.7%. Local recurrence was 4.5%.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-institution study with no comparative open or laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection is safe, feasible, and oncologically sound with short-term and long-term outcomes comparable to open and laparoscopic surgery.

Four-arm single docking full robotic surgery for low rectal cancer: technique standardization

The authors present the four-arm single docking full robotic surgery to treat low rectal cancer. The eight main operative steps are: 1- patient positioning; 2- trocars set-up and robot docking; 3- sigmoid colon, left colon and splenic flexure mobilization (lateral-to-medial approach); 4-Inferior mesenteric artery and vein ligation (medial-to-lateral approach); 5- total mesorectum excision and preservation of hypogastric and pelvic autonomic nerves (sacral dissection, lateral dissection, pelvic dissection); 6- division of the rectum using an endo roticulator stapler for the laparoscopic performance of a double-stapled coloanal anastomosis (type I tumor); 7- intersphincteric resection, extraction of the specimen through the anus and lateral-to-end hand sewn coloanal anastomosis (type II tumor); 8- cylindric abdominoperineal resection, with transabdominal section of the levator muscles (type IV tumor). The techniques employed were safe and have presented low rates of complication and no mortality.

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.

Laparoscopic translevator approach to abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma: feasibility and short-term oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

The extra-levator approach to abdominal perineal resection (APR) was developed in order to reduce the rates of positive circumferential resection margin. This approach, however, is associated with significant morbidity. We postulate that a less radical resection of the levators done laparoscopically could significantly decrease the rate of perineal complications while ensuring an oncologically adequate specimen. To date, to our knowledge, there are no reports in the literature describing a laparoscopic translevator approach for APR. The purpose of this study is to describe our initial experience with this approach and assess our short-term oncologic and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent laparoscopic APR with intra-abdominal levator transection for rectal cancer from 2012 to 2014 at a single tertiary care institution. Main outcome measures include: perineal flap rates, post-operative complications, length of stay, distance from tumour to circumferential resection margin, R0 status, and disease recurrence. Data are presented as median (interquartile range) unless otherwise noted.

RESULTS

Seventeen cases were identified. Patient age was 61 (range 34-75), and 59 % were male. Pre-operative distance of the tumour from the anal verge was 2.6 cm (0.4-3.9). Post-operative length of stay was 4 (4-6) days. One patient required a perineal flap for reconstruction. Four patients (22 %) had perineal complications (three wound infections and one hernia). No patients reported sexual dysfunction, and one (5 %) developed urinary retention. Five (29 %) patients had a complete pathological response. The circumferential resection margin was 1.5 (0.8-2.5) cm, with no positive margins reported. The number of retrieved lymph nodes was 12 (range 2-30). Follow-up was 9.7 months (range 20 days-23 months), during which one patient developed recurrent disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes a novel surgical approach to APR that has the potential to both decrease perineal complications and provide excellent oncologic results.

Laparoscopic vs open abdominoperineal resection in the multimodality management of low rectal cancers

AIM

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared with the open procedure in multimodality management of rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 106 rectal cancer patients who underwent open abdominoperineal resection (OAPR) were matched with 106 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in a 1 to 1 fashion, between 2009 and 2013 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Propensity score matching was carried out based on age, gender, pathological staging of the disease and administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Data regarding preoperative staging, surgical technique, pathological results, postoperative recovery and complications were reviewed and compared between the LAPR and OAPR groups. Perineal closure around the stoma and pelvic floor reconstruction were performed only in OAPR, not in LAPR. Therefore, abdominoperineal resection procedure-specific surgical complications including parastomal hernia and perineal wound complications were compared between the open and laparoscopic procedure. Regular surveillance of the two cohorts was carried out to gather prognostic data. Disease-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with locally advanced disease treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the LAPR group and the OAPR group in terms of clinicopathological features. The operation time (180.8 ± 47.8 min vs 172.1 ± 49.2 min, P = 0.190), operative blood loss (93.9 ± 60.0 mL vs 88.4 ± 55.2 mL, P = 0.494), total number of retrieved lymph nodes (12.9 ± 6.9 vs 12.9 ± 5.4, P = 0.974), surgical complications (12.3% vs 15.1%, P = 0.549) and pathological characteristics were comparable between the LAPR and OAPR group, respectively. Compared with OAPR patients, LAPR patients showed significantly shorter postoperative analgesia (2.4 ± 0.7 d vs 2.7 ± 0.6 d, P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (57.3 ± 7.9 h vs 63.5 ± 9.2 h, P < 0.001), shorter urinary drainage time (6.5 ± 3.4 d vs 7.8 ± 1.3 d, P < 0.001), and shorter postoperative admission (11.2 ± 4.7 d vs 12.6 ± 4.0 d, P = 0.014). With regard to APR-specific complications (perineal wound complications and parastomal hernia), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Similar results were found in the 26 pairs of patients administered neoadjuvant chemoradiation in subgroup analysis. During the follow-up period, no port site recurrences were observed.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer is safe, and is associated with earlier recovery and shorter admission time in combination with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.