Prone or lithotomy positioning during an abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer results in comparable oncologic outcomes

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.

Management of Recurrent Anal Cancer

Locoregional failure or recurrence after completion of chemoradiation for anal squamous cell carcinoma occurs in up to 27% of patients. Complete restaging with multimodality imaging should be performed to evaluate the extent of local disease and distant metastases. Extensive discussion in multidisciplinary tumor board and with necessary specialties is vital to assess possibility of R0 resection. Salvage surgery with R0 resection through abdominoperineal resection and possible exenteration is recommended with pedicled flap for perineal reconstruction. Five year overall survival rates are ∼50%. Successful management of recurrent anal squamous cell carcinoma relies on careful patient selection, multidisciplinary collaboration, and R0 resection.

Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates

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

Lithotomy versus Prone Position for Perianal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Studies objectively comparing lithotomy and prone positions regarding surgeon comfort, ergonomics, patient comfort, and position related complications are scarce.

Methods

The patients posted for surgery of either fistula in ano, hemorrhoids, or were included in this study. Subjective Mental Effort Questionnaire (SMEQ) and Local Experienced Discomfort (LED) scale were used to score the level of mental and physical stress among the operating surgeon, assistants, and the scrub nurse. Other parameters studied were the exposure of the operative site, patient comfort level, and position-related complications.

Results

Thirty patients were operated in each position. Mean ± standard deviation of jackknife prone vs. lithotomy surgeon SMEQ score (15.6 ± 10.4 vs. 107.0 ± 11.5, P < 0.05) and LED score (1.8 ± 1.5 vs. 6.7 ± 0.5, P < 0.05) were found to be statistically significant. Prone vs. lithotomy assistant SMEQ score (29.1 ± 13.1 vs. 100.6 ± 8.7, P < 0.05) and LED score (4.6 ± 1.1 vs. 7.4 ± 0.8, P < 0.05) were also found to be statistically significant. SMEQ (10.0 ± 0.0 vs. 20.6 ± 2.5, P < 0.05) and LED scores (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 3.3 ± 0.5, P < 0.05) of scrub nurses and LED scores (2.5 ± 0.5 vs. 6.3 ± 0.7, P < 0.05) of patients were also statistically significant. Exposure of the operative site was significantly better in the prone position (5.0 vs. 2.1, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Significantly better SMEQ, LED, and exposure score suggests the superiority of jackknife prone position over the lithotomy in terms of significantly less mental and physical stress to the operating surgeon, assistant, and scrub nurse; better ergonomics, and excellent exposure.

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

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

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

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

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

Prone Versus Supine Position in Abdominoperineal Resection: Outcomes in the Laparoscopic Era

Background: It is unclear whether the supine or prone approach for abdominoperineal resection (APR) influences outcomes. Methods: In a retrospective study of patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative laparoscopic APR from 2005 to 2018, we compared perioperative data, postoperative outcomes, oncological outcomes, and survival between the two approaches. Results: We recruited 123 patients (58 for the supine group and 65 for the prone group), with a median age of 72 (41-93) years. Mean follow-up was 67.4-45.7 months (28-169) in the supine group and 47.8-30.9 months (13-158) in the prone group (P = .026). Duration of surgery was longer in the prone group at 237 ± 52.3 minutes versus 210 ± 56.6 minutes in the supine group (P = .007). The incidence of tumor perforation during surgery was 9% in the supine group versus 3% in the prone group (P = .208). The incidence of perineal wound infection did not differ significantly between groups (supine 22% versus prone 20%, P = .93). The mesorectum was incomplete in 25% cases in the supine group and 14% cases in the prone group (P = .175). Circumferential resection margin positivity was 21% in the supine group and 14% in the prone group (P = .374). Local and distant recurrence was higher in patients with adenocarcinoma in the supine group at 10% and 31% versus 4% and 17% in the prone group (P = .177). Overall survival was higher in the prone group: 4% of patients died due to disease progression compared with 24% in the supine group (P = .034). Conclusions: Our results suggest that morbidity is similar with both laparoscopic techniques, but long-term outcomes seem better with the prone approach.

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.

Selection and Outcomes in Abdominoperineal Resection

Since the initial descriptions of the abdominoperineal resection by Sir William Ernest Miles which was then followed by the perfection of the total mesorectal excision by Professor Bill Heald, the surgical management of rectal cancer has made tremendous strides. However, even with the advent and sophistication of neoadjuvant therapy, there remains a formidable amount of patients requiring an abdominoperineal resection. The purpose of this review is to delineate the indication and selection process by which patients are determined to require an abdominoperineal resection, as well as the oncologic and overall outcomes associated with the operation.

Trans-perineal minimally invasive approach during extralevator abdominoperineal excision for advanced low rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study is to evaluate trans-perineal minimally invasive approach for extralevator abdominoperineal excision (TP-ELAPE) in a synchronous lithotomy position for locally advanced low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between May 2013 and February 2016, 14 patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer underwent TP-ELAPE for the perineal phase of extralevator abdominoperineal excision, and 18 patients underwent conventional ELAPE.

RESULTS

There was no positive circumferential resection margin in both groups. Patients who received TP-ELAPE had similar bowel perforation rate (7.1% vs. 5.6%, p = 1.000), longer transperineal operative time (100 vs. 40 min, p < 0.001) and higher surgical difficulty visual analog scale (VAS) scores (6 vs. 2, p < 0.001), while had shorter total procedure time (215 vs. 260 min, p = 0.015), lower VAS pain scores on day 1 postoperatively (5 vs. 6.5, p = 0.049), shorter postoperative anus exhausting time (22 h vs 28 h, p = 0.006), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (11.5 d vs 13.5d, p = 0.028) compared with patients who received conventional ELAPE. There was no local recurrence with median follow-up time of 53 months in the TP-ELAPE group and 51 months in the conventional ELAPE group. There were no differences for disease-free survival (p = 0.835) and overall survival (p = 0.829) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TP-ELAPE approach in the synchronous lithotomy position might be a feasible approach for low rectal cancer, while ensuring a radical and safe surgical procedure.

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

Since its introduction, extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) in the prone position has gained significant attention and recognition as an important surgical procedure for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer. Most studies suggest that because of adequate resection and precise anatomy, ELAPE could decrease the rate of positive circumferential resection margins, intraoperative perforation, and may further decrease local recurrence rate and improve survival. Some studies show that extensive resection of pelvic floor tissue may increase the incidence of wound complications and urogenital dysfunction. Laparoscopic/robotic ELAPE and trans-perineal minimally invasive approach allow patients to be operated in the lithotomy position, which has advantages of excellent operative view, precise dissection and reduced postoperative complications. Pelvic floor reconstruction with biological mesh could significantly reduce wound complications and the duration of hospitalization. The proposal of individualized ELAPE could further reduce the occurrence of postoperative urogenital dysfunction and chronic perianal pain. The ELAPE procedure emphasizes precise anatomy and conforms to the principle of radical resection of tumors, which is a milestone operation for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer.

Postanal minimally invasive surgery "PAMIS" assisted extra-levator abdominoperineal excision "ELAPE" for cancer: A novel approach in supine position

Local recurrences are more common after abdominoperineal excision (APE) than after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Extralevator APE was introduced to address this problem. The post anal minimally invasive approach had been used by other authors for transperineal mesh rectopexy but not in cancer management. Our aim is to use the post-anal minimally invasive approach for better visualization and division of the levator Ani during the Extralevator abdominoprineal excision in 2 cases of carcinoma of the anal canal. After laparoscopic exploration of the abdomen and performing a laparoscopic nerve sparing TME down to the levator ani from the abdominal side, the perineal phase was started by a purse string suture followed by a postanal incision and division of the Anococcygeal ligament, the gel port was inserted where visualization of the levator ani allows its division under vision posteriorly and laterally in order to achieve a good circumferential resection margin in the studied 2 cases. Good circumferential resection margin was reported pathologically and photographed in one of them. Postanal minimally invasive PAMIS assisted technique facilitates the extralevator abdominoperineal "ELAPE" in supine position. However a large multicenter trial comparing this new assisted technique with the traditional ELAPE id needed for a final conclusion.

Perioperative and oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection in the prone position vs the classic lithotomy position: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study is a systematic review with meta-analysis designed to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of the abdominoperineal resection (APR) carried out in the prone jack-knife position (P-APR) vs the classic lithotomy position (C-APR).

METHODS

We conducted an electronic search through PubMed utilizing the PRISMA guidelines. We included all randomized and nonrandomized studies which allowed for comparative analysis between the two groups. Research that focused on and analyzed the extralevator abdominal excision were excluded. Pooled variables and number of events were analyzed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

The final analysis included seven nonrandomized retrospective cohorts encompassing 1663 patients. P-APR was associated with decreased operative time (OT) (DM, -43.8 minutes; P < 0.01) and estimated blood loss (EBL) (DM, 86.9 mL; P < 0.01). There were no observed differences regarding perineal wound infections (PWI) (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; P = 0.18), intraoperative perforation of rectum (IOP) (OR, 0.98; P = 0.97), circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (OR, 1.02; P = 0.98) or 5-year LR (OR, 1.00; P = 0.99).

CONCLUSION

The prone approach for APR is associated with decreased EBL and OT, although not with any change in the incidence of PWI or IOP. Moreover, surgical positioning per se does not appear to affect the CRM positivity rates or LR rate.

The Estimate of the Impact of Coccyx Resection in Surgical Field Exposure During Abdominal Perineal Resection Using Preoperative High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the improvement in surgical exposure by removal of the coccyx, during abdomino-perineal resection (APR), in rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 29 consecutive patients with rectal cancer was carried out. Using MR T2 sagittal series, the solid angle was estimated using the angle determined by the anterior resection margin and the tip of coccyx (no coccyx resection) or the tip of last sacral vertebra (coccyx resection). The solid angle provides an estimate of the tridimensional surface area provided by an original angle resulting in the best estimate of the surgeon's view/exposure to the critical dissecting point of choice (anterior rectal wall). The difference ("Gain") in surgical field exposure by removal of the coccyx was compared by the solid angle variation between the two estimates (with and without the coccyx).

RESULTS

Routine removal of the coccyx determines an average 42% (95% CI 27-57%) gain in surgical field exposure area facing the anterior rectal wall at the level of the prostate/vagina by the surgeon. Fifteen (51%) patients had ≥30% (median) estimated gain in surgical field exposure by coccygectomy. There was no association between BMI, age or gender and estimated gain in surgical field exposure area.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine removal of the coccyx during APR may result in an average increase in 42% in surgical field exposure during APR's perineal dissection. Precise estimation of surgical field exposure gain by removal of the coccyx may be predicted by MR sagittal series for each individual patient.

Extralevator Abdominal Perineal Excision Versus Standard Abdominal Perineal Excision: Impact on Quality of the Resected Specimen and Postoperative Morbidity

BACKGROUND

Abdominal perineal excision (APE) has been associated with a high risk of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM+) and local recurrence rates in the treatment of rectal cancer. An alternative extralevator approach (ELAPE) has been suggested to improve the quality of resection by avoiding coning of the specimen decreasing the risk of tumor perforation and CRM+. The aim of this study is to compare the quality of the resected specimen and postoperative complication rates between ELAPE and "standard" APE.

METHODS

All patients between 1998 and 2014 undergoing abdominal perineal excision for primary or recurrent rectal cancer at a single Institution were reviewed. Between 1998 and 2008, all patients underwent standard APE. In 2009 ELAPE was introduced at our Institution and all patients requiring APE underwent this alternative procedure (ELAPE). The groups were compared according to pathological characteristics, specimen quality (CRM status, perforation and failure to provide the rectum and anus in a single specimen-fragmentation) and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent standard APEs, while 22 underwent ELAPE. There were no differences in CRM+ (10.6 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.70) or tumor perforation rates (8 vs. 0%; p = 0.30) between APE and ELAPE. However, ELAPE were less likely to result in a fragmented specimen (42 vs. 4%; p = 0.002). Advanced pT-stage was also a risk factor for specimen fragmentation (p = 0.03). There were no differences in severe (Grade 3/4) postoperative morbidity (13 vs. 10%; p = 0.5). Perineal wound dehiscences were less frequent among ELAPE (52 vs 13%; p < 0.01). Despite short follow-up (median 21 mo.), 2-year local recurrence-free survival was better for patients undergoing ELAPE when compared to APE (87 vs. 49%; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

ELAPE may be safely implemented into routine clinical practice with no increase in postoperative morbidity and considerable improvements in the quality of the resected specimen of patients with low rectal cancers.

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

OBJECTIVE

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) reduces the risk of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) and of intraoperative perforation (IOP), both of which are associated with high local recurrence rates and poor survival outcomes for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the results of ELAPE with conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) for low rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 25 consecutive patients underwent ELAPE for low rectal cancer between November 2008 and September 2011. Fifty-six patients treated by conventional APE prior to 2008 were selected from our rectal cancer database for comparison as a historical cohort.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 44.7 months in the ELAPE group, and 70.6 months in the APE group. Patients undergoing ELAPE had a lower CRM positivity and IOP rate than APE (12% vs. 20%, p=0,531; 4% vs. 8,9%, p=0,826; respectively). The ELAPE group was associated with higher perineal wound complications than the APE group (16.0% vs. 1.8%, p=0.030). Local recurrence rates for patients in both groups did not differ significantly (4.0% vs. 3.6%, p=1.0).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that ELAPE technique was associated with less CRM involvement and reduced rates of IOP but markedly higher rates of postoperative perineal complications occurred as compared to conventional surgery. ELAPE must be reserved for advanced low rectal cancers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Circumferential resection margins and perineal complications after neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy followed by extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum: Five years of activity at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (ELAPE) has been introduced to improve the circumferential resection margins (CRM) compared with traditional APER.

OBJECTIVE

We present short-term results achieved with prone ELAPE preceded by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy during the last 5 years of activity.

DESIGN

A retrospective review was conducted.

SETTINGS AND PATIENTS

Prone ELAPE operations performed between September 2010 and August 2014 at Leicester Royal Infirmary preceded by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data regarding demographics, staging, neoadjuvant therapies, intraoperative perforations, and perineal complications were collected.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were included. Pretreatment radiological T4 were 25.0%, histological T4 2.8%. Intraoperative perforations occurred in 2.8%, CRM was involved in 11.1%. Perineal complications consisted of superficial wound infections (20.8%), full thickness dehiscences (16.7%), hematomas (9.7%), pelvic collections (6.9%), and perineal hernias (5.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, prone ELAPE preceded by long-course chemoradiotherapy has been successfully used in the last 5 years to resect low rectal tumors. Perineal wound complications rates are similar to those presented in series using direct perineal closures. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:86-90. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Short-term Outcomes of an Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection in the Prone Position Compared With a Conventional Abdominoperineal Resection for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: The Early Experience at a Single Institution

Purpose

This study compared the perioperative and pathologic outcomes between an extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the prone position and a conventional APR.

Methods

Between September 2011 and March 2014, an extralevator APR in the prone position was performed on 13 patients with rectal cancer and a conventional APR on 26 such patients. Patients' demographics and perioperative and pathologic outcomes were obtained from the colorectal cancer database and electronic medical charts.

Results

Age and preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level were significantly different between the conventional and the extralevator APR in the prone position (median age, 65 years vs. 55 years [P = 0.001]; median preoperative CEA level, 4.94 ng/mL vs. 1.81 ng/mL [P = 0.011]). For perioperative outcomes, 1 (3.8%) intraoperative bowel perforation occurred in the conventional APR group and 2 (15.3%) in the extralevator APR group. In the conventional and extralevator APR groups, 12 (46.2%) and 6 patients (46.2%) had postoperative complications, and 8 (66.7%) and 2 patients (33.4%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV), respectively. The circumferential resection margin involvement rate was higher in the extralevator APR group compared with the conventional APR group (3 of 13 [23.1%] vs. 3 of 26 [11.5%]).

Conclusion

The extralevator APR in the prone position for patients with advanced low rectal cancer has no advantages in perioperative and pathologic outcomes over a conventional APR for such patients. However, through early experience with a new surgical technique, we identified various reasons for the lack of favorable outcomes and expect sufficient experience to produce better peri- or postoperative outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Therapeutic results of abdominoperineal resection in the prone jackknife position for T3-4 low rectal cancers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the therapeutic results of abdominoperineal resections in the prone jackknife position for T3-4 low rectal cancers.

METHODS

From January 2002 to January 2011, 536 patients with T3-T4 low rectal cancer underwent abdominoperineal resection. Two hundred forty-three were treated in the Lloyd-Davies position and 293 in the prone jackknife position. Clinicopathological data and survival of the two groups were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Abdominoperineal resections in the prone jackknife position group were associated with significantly less blood loss (124 ± 50.68 vs 210.67 ± 83.32 ml, P < 0.001) and shorter operation times (3.10 ± 1.08 vs 3.82 ± 1.43 h, p = 0.010) than those in Lloyd-Davies position group. The total local recurrence rate is 8.4 % (45/536). The local recurrence rate in the prone jackknife position group was significantly lower than in the Lloyd-Davies position group (5.5 vs 11.9 %, P < 0.001). By multivariate regression analysis, depth of tumor invasion (P = 0.032), CRM (P < 0.001), and position (P = 0.015) were found to be independent risk factors for local recurrence. Multivariate Cox regression survival analysis, lymph node metastasis, and CRM (P < 0.001) were proven to be the major independent prognostic factors for T3-T4 low rectal cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominoperineal resection in the prone jackknife position for T3-T4 low rectal cancers is feasible and has a lower local recurrence.

Better operative outcomes achieved with the prone jackknife vs. lithotomy position during abdominoperineal resection in patients with low rectal cancer

Background

Lithotomy (LT) and prone jackknife positions (PJ) are routinely used for abdominoperineal resection (APR). The present study compared the clinical, pathological, and oncological outcomes of PJ-APR vs. LT-APR in low rectal cancer patients in order to confirm which position will provide more benefits to patients undergoing APR.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent curative APR between January 2002 and December 2011. Patients were matched 1:2 (PJ-APR = 74 and LT-APR = 37 patients) based on gender and age. Perioperative data, postoperative outcomes, and survival were compared between the two approaches.

Results

Hospital stay was shorter with PJ-APR compared with LT-APR (P < 0.05). Compared with LT-APR, duration of anesthesia (234 ± 50.8 vs. 291 ± 69 min, P = 0.022) and surgery (183 ± 44.8 vs. 234 ± 60 min, P = 0.016) was shorter with PJ-APR, and estimated blood losses were smaller (549 ± 218 vs. 674 ± 350 mL, P < 0.001). Blood transfusions were required in 37.8% of LT-APR patients and in 8.1% of PJ-APR patients (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the distribution of N stages (P = 0.27). Median follow-up was 47.1 (13.6–129.7) months. Postoperative complications were reported by fewer patients after PJ-APR compared with LT-APR (14.9% vs. 32.4%, P = 0.030). There were no significant differences in overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and distant metastasis (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The PJ position provided a better exposure for low rectal cancer and had a lower operative risk and complication rates than LT-APR. However, there was no difference in rectal cancer prognosis between the two approaches. PJ-APR might be a better choice for patients with low rectal cancer.

Prospective controlled study of the safety and oncological outcomes of ELAPE procure with definitive anatomic landmarks versus conventional APE for lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of extra-levator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) procedure for lower rectal cancer is controversial. It is unclear whether the ELAPE procedure could improve surgical safety and lead to better oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Sixty-nine lower rectal cancer patients who underwent ELAPE (36 cases) or conventional abdominoperineal resection (APE; 33 cases) between June 2011 and February 2013 were prospectively investigated. Clinicopathological variables including blood loss, intraoperative perforation (IOP) rate, circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, lymph node harvest, the postoperative complications, urinary and sexual function, quality of life (QOL), local recurrence rate and survival were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

Blood loss (P = 0.021), perineal wound complication (P = 0.039), IOP rate (P = 0.028), local recurrence (P = 0.034) were significantly less frequent in the ELAPE group. There was greater CRM involvement in the conventional APE group but no statistical difference between the two groups. Urinary function, sexual function and QOL were not significantly different between the two groups. Overall survival and progression-free survival were not significantly different between two groups, even when survival was analyzed according to TNM stage, T stage, N stage, and with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In patients who underwent ELAPE there was no statistical difference in postoperative complications between younger and elderly patients (age ≥60).

CONCLUSIONS

ELAPE procedure with definitive anatomic landmarks demonstrated surgical safety and decreased local recurrence for lower rectal cancer patients including the elderly, but there were no survival improvements in compared to conventional APE procedure.

Improved quality of care for patients undergoing an abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

New diagnostics, the emergence of total mesorectal excision and neoadjuvant treatments have improved outcome for patients with rectal cancer. Patients with distal rectal cancer undergoing an abdominoperineal excision seem to do worse compared to those treated with sphinctersparing techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of care for patients undergoing an abdominoperineal excision for distal rectal cancer during the last 15 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients with rectal cancer, who underwent an abdominoperineal excision between December 1996 and December 2010 in 5 Dutch hospitals were analysed. Patients were divided into three cohorts; 1996-2001, 2001-2005 and 2006-2010. All data was extracted from medical records.

RESULTS

477 patients were identified. There was no significant difference in sex, age, BMI, prior pelvic surgery and ASA stages between the cohorts. MRI became a standard tool in the work-up, the use increased from 4.5% in the first, to 95.1% in the last cohort (p < 0.0001). Neoadjuvant treatment shifted from predominantly none (64.9% in cohort 1) to short course radiotherapy (66.7% in cohort 2) and chemoradiation therapy (55.7% in cohort 3). There was a trend towards a decreased circumferential resection margin involvement in the cohorts (18.8%, 16.7% and 11.4%; p = 0.142). Accidental bowel perforations have significantly decreased from 28.6%, and 21.7% to 9.2% in cohort 3 (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Significant improvements in work-up, neoadjuvant and surgical treatment have been made for patients with low rectal cancer, undergoing an abdominoperineal excision. These improvements result in improved short term outcome.

Surgical strategy for low rectal cancers

The two goals of surgery for lower rectal cancer surgery are to obtain clear "curative" margins and to limit post-surgical functional disorders. The question of whether or not to preserve the anal sphincter lies at the center of the therapeutic choice. Histologically, tumor-free distal and circumferential margins of>1mm allow a favorable oncologic outcome. Whether such margins can be obtained depends of TNM staging, tumor location, response to chemoradiotherapy and type of surgical procedure. The technique of intersphincteric resection relies on these narrow margins to spare the sphincter. This procedure provides satisfactory oncologic outcome with a rate of circumferential margin involvement ranging from 5% to 11%, while good continence is maintained in half of the patients. The extralevator abdominoperineal resection provides good oncologic results, however this procedure requires a permanent colostomy. A permanent colostomy alters several domains of quality of life when located at the classical abdominal site but not when brought out at the perineal site as a perineal colostomy.

Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor with primary perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer (BIOPEX-study)

BACKGROUND

Primary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure.

METHODS/DESIGN

In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs.

DISCUSSION

The BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia.

TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01927497 (Clinicaltrial.gov).

Controversies in abdominoperineal excision

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

Perineal reconstruction after extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (eLAPE): a systematic review

PURPOSE

Extra-levator abdominal perineal excision of rectum (eLAPE) for low rectal tumours is associated with a lower incidence of circumferential resection involvement. However, there is no consensus on the ideal technique for perineal reconstruction following eLAPE. We thereby conducted a 5-year review of perineal closure outcomes following eLAPE.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted between 2006 and July 2012. Perineal wound healing and complications in the post-operative period were examined.

RESULTS

Original data following eLAPE were found in 27 studies involving 963 individuals to inform a qualitative synthesis. Pooled analysis revealed that investigators most commonly employed either biomesh closure (12 studies, n = 149), myocutaneous flap closure (9 studies, n = 201) and primary closure (4, n = 578). The incidence of minor and major wound complications and perineal hernias across the latter groups was (27.5, 13.4 and 2.7 %), (29.4, 19.4 and 0 %) and (17.1, 6.4 and 1.2 %), respectively. Two studies utilised synthetic mesh closure (n = 4) and omentoplasty (n = 31). Objective assessment of wound healing was strikingly deficient across most studies, largely due to low level retrospective evidence lacking randomised controls. Modest cohort sizes with short follow-up data were evident due to the relative novelty of eLAPE.

CONCLUSION

The paucity of high quality data, suggests that a prospective, randomised trial is needed to determine the ideal technique for perineal reconstruction following eLAPE.

Local recurrence after prone vs supine abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer

AIM

Tumour-involved circumferential resection margins (CRMs) and intra-operative perforation (IOP) are well known risk factors for local recurrence after surgery for low rectal cancer. In conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) the patient remains in the supine position for the perineal part of the procedure. However, turning the patient to the prone position may improve visualization which potentially might reduce the risk of involved CRMs and IOP and thus improve local control. The study was carried out to assess local recurrence rates after APE in relation to the positioning of the patient during the perineal part of the procedure.

METHOD

This cohort study includes 466 patients having APE for low rectal cancer between 2001 and December 2010. Data were retrieved from the regional rectal cancer registry in Stockholm and from a retrospective review of patient files.

RESULTS

An incomplete resection was reported in 12.4% after APE in the supine position and in 6.8% after APE in the prone position (P = 0.038). Corresponding figures for IOP were 12.4% and 4.0% (P < 0.001). Prone APE was associated with a 39% relative reduction in local recurrence events compared with APE in the supine position, although the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.27-1.37).

CONCLUSION

APE in the prone position reduced the incidence of incomplete resection and IOP, but the study did not find a statistically significant difference in local failure rates related to the position of the patient.

Less than 12 nodes in the surgical specimen after total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiation: it means more than you think!

BACKGROUND

A minimum of 12 examined lymph nodes (LN) is recommended to ensure adequate staging and oncologic resection of patients undergoing proctectomy for rectal adenocarcinoma. However, a decreased number of LN is not unusual in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

PURPOSE

We hypothesized that a decreased number of LN in the proctectomy specimen of these patients may be an indicator of tumor response and be associated with improved prognosis.

METHODS

A single-center colorectal cancer database was queried for c-stage II-III rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by proctectomy between 1997 and 2007. Patients were categorized into two groups according to the number of LN retrieved from the proctectomy specimen: <12 LN versus ≥12 LN. Groups were compared with respect to demographics, tumor and treatment characteristics, and the following oncologic outcomes: overall-survival (OS), cancer-specific-mortality (CSM), cancer-free-survival (CFS), distant (DR), and local recurrences (LR).

RESULTS

The query returned 237 patients. There were 173 (73 %) males, and the median age was 57 years [interquartile range (IQR) 49-66 years]. The median number of LN retrieved was 15 (IQR 10-23) and 70 (30 %) patients had less than 12 nodes examined. The <12 nodes group was older [60 (IQR 51-71 years) vs. 55 (IQR 48-65 years), p = 0.009] and had more pathologic complete responders (36 vs. 19 %, p = 0.01). No <12 nodes patient experienced a LR, whereas the 5-year LR rate was 11 % in the ≥12 nodes group (p = 0.004). Other oncologic outcomes were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Retrieval of less than 12 nodes in the proctectomy specimen of rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation does not affect OS, CSM, CFS, or DR and may be a marker of higher tumor response and, consequently, decreased LR rate.

Factors influencing circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer

AIM

Abdominoperineal excision (APR) has been associated with higher circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and local recurrence rates than extralevator APR for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the CRMs in APR and low anterior resection (LAR) specimens and to identify factors influencing CRM involvement.

METHOD

All pathological specimens from consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection at the Cleveland Clinic Florida, from January 2000 to July 2010, were reviewed by two pathologists. Demographics, tumour characteristics, operative data, postoperative pathology and Dworak's tumour regression grade were compared between specimens with positive and negative CRMs.

RESULTS

One-hundred and fifty-four patients underwent curative APR (n = 65) or LAR (n = 69). Mean tumour size was 3.6 cm, and mean distance from the dentate line was 5.4 cm. Nine (6.8%) patients had a positive CRM (n = 6 APR, n = 3 LAR), which was associated with tumour size > 5.9 cm (P = 0.002), a distance of ≤ 2.6 cm from the dentate line (P = 0.013), microvascular invasion (P = 0.009), perineural invasion (P < 0.001), number of positive lymph nodes (P = 0.046) and incomplete total mesorectal excision (TME) (P < 0.001). APR specimens were three times more likely than LAR specimens to have an incomplete mesorectum (9.8%vs 2.9%, P = 0.322).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors associated with a positive CRM were tumour size > 5.9 cm, a distance of ≤ 2.6 cm from the dentate line, incomplete TME, number of positive nodes and microvascular and perineural invasion. The incidence of a positive CRM was not significantly different between LAR and APR (n = 3 LAR and n = 6 APR).

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

AIM

The study aimed to compare recent reports on standard and alternative methods of abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer regarding the rates of circumferential resection margin involvement and intra-operative bowel perforation.

METHOD

Data on rates of margin involvement and perforation were obtained from eight recently published reports and also from a prospective registry of resections at Concord Hospital. Rates of these outcomes and their 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no evidence that extralevator abdominoperineal excision yielded significantly lower rates of resection margin involvement or intra-operative bowel perforation compared with standard abdominoperineal excision in six independent hospital- and population-based patient series. Abdominosacral resection of the rectum, on the other hand, did show significantly lower rates of these endpoints, albeit in selected patients.

CONCLUSION

The role of extralevator abdominoperineal excision and abdominosacral resection of the rectum should be investigated further in randomized controlled trials.

New developments in colorectal surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The field of colorectal surgery continues to move forward as technical innovations emerge and as surgeons ask critical questions. The results of subsequent investigations often lead to changes in practice. This review examines recent publications that describe these practice changes.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified and reviewed recent publications in the areas of rectal cancer controversies, genetic risk profiling, practice improvements, diverticulitis, enhanced recovery protocols, fecal incontinence, and single incision laparoscopic surgery.

SUMMARY

New technologies and practice innovations will continue to enhance patient outcomes. Multiinstitutional studies, randomized when able, are necessary to further define the safety and efficacy of new surgical techniques and to further define best practices in colorectal surgery.

Randomized clinical trial of conventional versus cylindrical abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

An alternative treatment for low rectal cancer is the cylindrical technique. We aim to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR) versus cylindrical APR.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel controlled trial was conducted between January 2008 and December 2010. Sixty-seven patients with T3-T4 low rectal cancer were identified during the study period (conventional n = 32, cylindrical n = 35).

RESULTS

Patients who received cylindrical APR had less operative time for the perineal portion (P < .001), larger perineal defect (P < .001), less intraoperative blood loss (P = .001), larger total cross-sectional tissue area (P < .001), similar total operative time (P = .096), and more incidence of perineal pain (P < .001). The local recurrence of the cylindrical APR group was improved statistically (P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Cylindrical APR in the prone jackknife position has the potential to reduce the risk of local recurrence without increased complications when compared with conventional APR in the lithotomy position for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

A century of abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

SUMMARY Abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer was described by Miles over 100 years ago. The technique and approach have undergone a number of modifications, however, the essence of the procedure remains essentially unchanged. Management of rectal cancer has changed significantly over the century as surgery and adjuvant therapies have evolved, with improved outcome and a marked decline in incidence of APE. It has been widely recognized that tumors requiring APE are associated with higher rates of local recurrence and positive resection margins compared with anterior resection. The modern challenge remains in obtaining oncological equivalence for both procedures. This article reviews the history and evolution of APE, assesses its current status and explores modern perspectives on optimizing the surgical approach.