Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

TY - JOUR

T1 - Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

AU - Perdawood, Sharaf

AU - Lund, T

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) probably improves the oncological quality of low rectal cancer surgery, as compared to standard abdominoperineal excision (SAPE), possibly due to lower rates of accidental perioperative bowel perforations and lower rates of circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity. The procedure may however, increase post-operative morbidity. The aim of this paper was to compare outcomes of SAPE and ELAPE for carcinoma of the lower rectum.METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients operated on at a single colorectal unit, in a provincial hospital in Denmark. Consecutive patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision (APE) between 2006 and 2012 were included. During this period, a gradual paradigm shift occurred towards adopting ELAPE, although both procedures were performed without a clear selection strategy. We reviewed medical records, including the pathological and radiological data. Patients were divided into two groups, SAPE and ELAPE. Main endpoints were rates of positive CRM, intraoperative bowel perforations, local recurrence rate, length of hospital stay, operative time, and perineal wound-related complications.RESULTS: One hundred and seven patients were included (median age 68 years, range 42-88 years; men = 72). The SAPE group included 39 patients and the ELAPE group 68 patients. Intraoperative bowel perforation was significantly lower in the ELAPE group (20.5 % SAPE vs 7.4 % ELAPE, p = 0.045). The rate of positive CRM was not significantly different (2.6 % SAPE vs 7.4 % ELAPE, p = 0.413). The local recurrence rate was not statistically significant (17.9 % SAPE vs 13.2 % ELAPE, p = 0.513). In the ELAPE group, operative time and hospital stay were significantly longer than the SAPE group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.021, respectively).CONCLUSIONS: We found low rates of positive CRM after APE compared with the literature. ELAPE did not reduce these rates, and although the local recurrence rate was lower, this did not reach statistical significance. ELAPE has significantly reduced the rate of intraoperative bowel perforation and can optimize low rectal cancer surgery in selected patients. We found no significant differences between the two procedures regarding wound-related complications. A tailored approach and a larger trial with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate long-term results.

AB - BACKGROUND: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) probably improves the oncological quality of low rectal cancer surgery, as compared to standard abdominoperineal excision (SAPE), possibly due to lower rates of accidental perioperative bowel perforations and lower rates of circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity. The procedure may however, increase post-operative morbidity. The aim of this paper was to compare outcomes of SAPE and ELAPE for carcinoma of the lower rectum.METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients operated on at a single colorectal unit, in a provincial hospital in Denmark. Consecutive patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision (APE) between 2006 and 2012 were included. During this period, a gradual paradigm shift occurred towards adopting ELAPE, although both procedures were performed without a clear selection strategy. We reviewed medical records, including the pathological and radiological data. Patients were divided into two groups, SAPE and ELAPE. Main endpoints were rates of positive CRM, intraoperative bowel perforations, local recurrence rate, length of hospital stay, operative time, and perineal wound-related complications.RESULTS: One hundred and seven patients were included (median age 68 years, range 42-88 years; men = 72). The SAPE group included 39 patients and the ELAPE group 68 patients. Intraoperative bowel perforation was significantly lower in the ELAPE group (20.5 % SAPE vs 7.4 % ELAPE, p = 0.045). The rate of positive CRM was not significantly different (2.6 % SAPE vs 7.4 % ELAPE, p = 0.413). The local recurrence rate was not statistically significant (17.9 % SAPE vs 13.2 % ELAPE, p = 0.513). In the ELAPE group, operative time and hospital stay were significantly longer than the SAPE group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.021, respectively).CONCLUSIONS: We found low rates of positive CRM after APE compared with the literature. ELAPE did not reduce these rates, and although the local recurrence rate was lower, this did not reach statistical significance. ELAPE has significantly reduced the rate of intraoperative bowel perforation and can optimize low rectal cancer surgery in selected patients. We found no significant differences between the two procedures regarding wound-related complications. A tailored approach and a larger trial with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate long-term results.

U2 - 10.1007/s10151-014-1243-8

DO - 10.1007/s10151-014-1243-8

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 25384360

SN - 1123-6337

VL - 19

SP - 145

EP - 152

JO - Techniques in Coloproctology

JF - Techniques in Coloproctology

IS - 3

ER -