Comparative study of extralevator vs. conventional abdominoperineal excision in a single centre in the developing world

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Abdominoperineal excision (APE) is used to resect cancers in the distal rectum and anus where sphincter-preserving surgery is not possible. It is associated with increased local recurrence rates compared to anterior resection. The extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) was developed to reduce local recurrence and was widely adopted without sound evidence. AIM: To compare the short-term (2 years) outcomes of patients managed with ELAPE to those with conventional APE in a single institution in a developing country. METHODS: A prospective database on all patients treated with prone ELAPE from 2010 to 2014 was compared to patients treated with conventional APE. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, intra-operative tumour perforation, involvement of the circumferential resection margin (CRM), surgical complications and mortality are reported. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were treated with APE of which 29 were male. Median age was 56. Thirty underwent conventional APE (16 male; 14 female) and 26 underwent ELAPE (15 male; 11 female). The groups were similar in age, tumour histology, height above anal verge clinical staging and response to neoadjuvant treatment. Perineal closure techniques in both cohorts were similar. There was no difference in intra-operative tumour perforation, involvement of the CRM, perineal wound complications or 30-day mortality in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in the important short-term outcomes of conventional APE when compared to ELAPE.

Related collections

Most cited references 12

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer.

C Anderin, Frances J D Smith, P Quirke … (2010)

Abdominoperineal excision (APE) for low rectal cancer is associated with higher rates of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and intraoperative perforation (IOPs) than anterior resection for higher tumours. This multicentre observational study was designed to confirm that extralevator APE can improve outcomes and investigated the morbidity associated with such extensive surgery. Some 176 extralevator APE procedures from 11 European colorectal surgeons were compared with 124 standard excisions from one UK centre. Clinical and pathological data were collected along with specimen photographs. Tissue morphometry was performed on the distal ten slices of the excision. Extralevator APE removed more tissue from outside the smooth muscle layer per slice (median area 2120 versus 1259 mm(2); P < 0.001) leading to a reduction in CRM involvement (from 49.6 to 20.3 per cent; P < 0.001) and IOP (from 28.2 to 8.2 per cent; P < 0.001) compared with standard surgery. However, extralevator surgery was associated with an increase in perineal wound complications (from 20 to 38.0 per cent; P = 0.019). Extralevator APE is associated with less CRM involvement and IOP than standard surgery. Copyright (c) 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 comments Cited 69 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision.

Nicholas P Mapstone, P Sagar, Philip Quirke … (2005)

Examine the cause of local recurrence (LR) and patient survival (S) following abdominoperineal resection (APR) and anterior resection (AR) for rectal carcinoma and the effect of introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) on APR. A total of 608 patients underwent surgery for rectal cancer in Leeds from 1986 to 1997. CRM status and follow-up data of local recurrence and patient survival were available for 561 patients, of whom 190 underwent APR (32.4%) and 371 AR (63.3%). Also, a retrospective study of pathologic images of 93 specimens of rectal carcinoma. Patients undergoing APR had a higher LR and lower survival (LR, 22.3% versus 13.5%, P = 0.002; S, 52.3% versus 65.8%, P = 0.003) than AR. LR free rates were lower in the APR group and cancer specific survival was lowered (LR, 66% versus 77%, log rank P = 0.03; S, 48% versus 59%, log rank P = 0.02). Morphometry: total area of surgically removed tissue outside the muscularis propria was smaller in APR specimens (n = 27) than AR specimens (n = 66) (P < 0.0001). Linear dimensions of transverse slices of tissue containing tumor, median posterior, and lateral measurements were smaller (P < 0.05) in the APR than the AR group. APR specimens with histologically positive CRM (n = 11) had a smaller area of tissue outside the muscularis propria (P = 0.04) compared with the CRM-negative APR specimens (n = 16). Incidence of CRM involvement in the APR group (41%) was higher than in the AR group (12%) (P = 0.006) in the 1997 to 2000 cohort. Similar results (36% and 22%) were found in the 1986 to 1997 cohort (P = 0.002). Patients treated by APR have a higher rate of CRM involvement, a higher LR, and poorer prognosis than AR. The frequency of CRM involvement for APR has not diminished with TME. CRM involvement in the APR specimens is related to the removal of less tissue at the level of the tumor in an APR. Where possible, a more radical operation should be considered for all low rectal cancer tumors.

0 comments Cited 46 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A systematic review of cancer related patient outcomes after anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer in the total mesorectal excision era.

R. Heald, Meghan Moran, Gina Brown-Guedira … (2011)

It is a widely held view that anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer is an oncologically superior operation to abdominoperineal excision (APE). However, some centres have demonstrated better outcomes with APE. We conducted a systematic review of high-quality studies within the total mesorectal excision (TME) era comparing outcomes of AR and APE. A literature search was performed to identify studies within the TME era comparing AR and APE with regard to the following: circumferential resection margin (CRM) status, tumour perforation rates, specimen quality, local recurrence, overall survival (OS; 3 or 5 year), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Additional data regarding patient demographics and tumour characteristics was collected. Twenty four studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria with Newcastle-Ottawa scores of six or greater. Where a significant difference was found, all studies reported lower and more advanced tumours for APE and 4/5 studies observed more frequent use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in APE patients. Tumour perforation rates and CRM involvement where reported, were significantly greater for APE. 8 out of 10 studies showing significant differences in local recurrence reported higher rates for APE but no differences were observed with distant recurrence. Where differences were noted, AR was reported to have increased DFS, CSS and OS compared to APE. Patients treated with AR have lower rates of tumour perforation and CRM involvement and tend to have better outcomes with regard to disease recurrence and survival. However, tumours treated by APE are lower and more locally advanced. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.