Abdominoperineal Resection For Rectal Cancer Research Articles

Effectiveness of placing prophylactic mesh with the Sugarbaker technique via laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: 1-year results

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of parastomal hernia prevention with the Sugarbaker technique via laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer after a 1-year follow-up at University Medical Center in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Materials and Methods Prospective study. Between November 2018 and July 2022, 43 patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and were divided into 2 groups: study (n = 15) with prophylactic mesh placement with the Sugarbaker technique and control (n = 28). All patients were tracked for at least a year and had an abdominal computed tomography scan. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the rate of parastomal hernia after 1 year. To compare the rates of parastomal hernia in 2 groups, the log-rank test was used. Results This study included 43 patients, the male-to-female ratio was approximately equal to 1:1, the median age was 62 years, the youngest age was 40 years, and the oldest age was 92 years. Rectal cancer stage III was found in 41.8% of people. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was used in 27.9% of cases. The average duration of operation was 184 minutes. The average time for mesh placement was 15 minutes. The overall complication rate was 16.4%. There were no issues with mesh placement. At 1 year, the control group had a higher cumulative rate of parastomal hernia than the study group (35.7% vs 0%; log-rank test, 6.4; P = 0.01). Conclusions Prophylactic mesh placement with the Sugarbaker technique via laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer is safe, does not increase complications, and reduces the cumulative rate of a parastomal hernia at 1 year in patients who have undergone prophylactic mesh placement.

Quality of life in patients with a perineal hernia

IntroductionPatients who develop a perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection may experience discomfort during daily activities and urogenital dysfunction, but the impact on quality of life has never been formally assessed. Materials and methodsPatients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer between 2014 and 2022 in two prospective multicenter trials were included. Primary outcome was defined as median overall scores or scores on functional and symptom scales of the following quality of life questionnaires: 5-level version of the 5-dimensional EuroQol, Short Form-36, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Colorectal cancer 29 and 30, Urogenital Distress Inventory-6, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7. ResultsQuestionnaires were available in 27 patients with a perineal hernia and 62 patients without a perineal hernia. The 5-dimensional EuroQol score was significantly lower in patients with a perineal hernia (83 vs 87, p = 0.048), which implies a reduced level of functioning. The median scores of pain-specific domains were significantly worse in patients with a perineal hernia as measured by the SF-36 (78 vs. 90, p = 0.006), the EORTC-CR29 (17 vs. 11, p=<0.001) and EORTC-C30 (17 vs. 0, p = 0.019). Also, significantly worse physical (73 vs. 100, p = 0.049) and emotional (83 vs. 100, p = 0.048) functioning based on EORTC-C30 was observed among those patients. Minimally important differences were found for role, physical and social functioning of the SF-36 and EORTC-C30. The urological function did not differ between the groups. ConclusionA symptomatic perineal hernia can significantly worsen quality of life on several domains, indicating the severity of this complication.

A preliminary report of laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy anterior to posterior sheath of rectus abdominis-transversus abdominis to prevent parastomal hernia

Objective: To examine the preliminary effect of laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy anterior to posterior sheath of rectus abdominis-transversus abdominis for the prevention of parastomal hernia after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Methods: This study is a prospective case series study. From June 2021 to June 2022, patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection combined with extraperitoneal colostomy anterior to posterior sheath of rectus abdominis-transversus abdominis at the First Department of General Surgery, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital were enrolled. The clinical data and postoperative CT images of patients were collected to analyze the incidence of surgical complication and parastomal hernia. Results: Totally 6 cases of patient were enrolled, including 3 males and 3 females, aging 72.5 (19.5) years (M(IQR)) (range: 55 to 79 years). The operation time was 250 (48) minutes (range: 190 to 275 minutes), the stoma operation time was 27.5 (10.7) minutes (range: 21 to 37 minutes), the bleeding volume was 30 (35) ml (range: 15 to 80 ml). All patients were cured and discharged without surgery-related complications. The follow-up time was 136 (105) days (range: 98 to 279 days). After physical examination and abdominal CT follow-up, no parastomal hernia occurred in the 6 patients up to this article. Conclusions: A method of laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy anterior to posterior sheath of rectus abdominis-transversus abdominis is established. Permanent stoma can be completed with this method safely. It may have a preventive effect on the occurrence of parastomal hernia, which is worthy of further study.

Effects of wound infection on prognosis after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection of rectal cancer.

In two facilities in Chongqing, this research sought to retrospectively evaluate the effects of perineal wound infection on survival after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) of rectal cancer. To obtain clinical information on patients who underwent LAPR between January 2013 and December 2021, we performed a multicenter cohort study. A total of 473 patients were enrolled: 314 in the non-infection group and 159 in the group with perineal infection. The general data, perioperative conditions, and tumor outcomes between groups were analyzed. The infection rates, recurrence rates, and survival rates of the two centers were compared. The age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), preoperative complications, preoperative treatment, and intraoperative conditions of patients in the LAPR infection group were not statistically different from those in the non-infection group. The percentage of men, typical postoperative hospital stay, length of initial postoperative therapy, and recurrence and metastasis rates were all considerably higher in the infection group than those in the non-infection group. Wound infection was an independent factor affecting tumor recurrence and metastasis after LAPR as well as an independent factor shortening patient survival time according to multivariate analysis. The incidence of wound infection, the rate of recurrence, and the rate of mortality did not vary significantly across sites. Wound infection after LAPR increases the mean postoperative hospital stay, prolongs the time to first postoperative treatment, and decreases the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Therefore, decreasing the rate of LAPR wound infection is expected to shorten the postoperative hospital stay and prolong the patient DFS and OS. Patients with postoperative infection may require intensive adjuvant therapy.

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

IntroductionOncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). Materials and methodsThis retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate. ResultsOf 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001. ConclusionNRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR.

V-008 ROBOTIC TOTALLY EXTRAPERITONEAL RETROMUSCULAR REPAIR OF A TYPE III PARASTOMAL HERNIA

Abstract Aim The retromuscular repair described by Pauli et al. (2016) dissects the retromuscular space, releases the transversus muscle, and lateralizes the stoma to place a retromuscular mesh. The aim was to show the results of the robotic approach for this intervention. Material &amp; Methods Video description of a case report. The patient was a 71-year-old woman that underwent an abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer in 2017 and presented with a 5.8 cm parastomal hernia without midline defects (type III of the EHS classification). Results Three robotic trocars were placed in the lateral of the right rectus sheath, and posteriorly a 12 mm assistance port was inserted in the left hypochondrium. The dissection began in the inferior preperitoneal space, until finding the left transversus muscle. Then, the rectus sheath was dissected superiorly and laterally. A posterior rectus sheath release was performed in a down–to–up direction, initially avoiding the parastomal hernia, which was later reduced. Posteriorly, the peritoneum was incised and then sutured to lateralize the stoma. The parastomal hernia defect and the posterior rectus sheath were equally sutured. Finally, a polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) mesh was placed in the retromuscular space, which was fixed with transfascial sutures to the sides of the stoma. Conclusions The robotic totally extraperitoneal retromuscular approach for parastomal hernias is safe and feasible, with the advantage of avoiding the intraperitoneal space.

Effectiveness of placing prophylactic mesh with the Sugarbaker technique via laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

Abstract Introduction: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of parastomal hernia prevention with the Sugarbaker technique via laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer after a one-year follow-up at University Medical Center in Ho Chi Minh City. Patients and methods: Intervention study. Between 11/2018 and 7/2022, 43 patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and were divided into two groups: intervention (n = 15) with prophylactic mesh placement using the Sugarbaker technique and control (n = 28). All patients were tracked for at least a year and had an abdominal computed tomography scan. The Kaplan Meier method was used to calculate the rate of parastomal hernia after one year. To compare the rates of parastomal hernia in two groups, the logrank test was used. Results: This study included 43 patients; the male to female ratio was approximately equal to 1:1; the median age was 62; the youngest age was 40; and the oldest age was 92. Rectal cancer stage III was found in 41.8% of people. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was used in 27.9% of cases. The average duration of operation was 184 minutes. The average time for mesh placement was 15 minutes. The overall complication rate was 16.4%. There were no issues with mesh placement. At one year, the control group had a higher cumulative rate of parastomal hernia than the intervention group (35.7% versus 0%, logrank 6.4, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Prophylactic mesh placement using the Sugarbaker technique during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cacner is safe, does not increase complications, and reduces the cumulative rate of a parastomal hernia at 1 year in patients who have undergone prophylactic mesh placement. Keywords: Prophylactic mesh placement, Sugarbaker technique, Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

Comparison of oncological outcomes between low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study using a multicenter database in Japan

BackgroundIt remains controversial whether the abdominoperineal resection (APR) procedure itself has a negative impact on prognosis compared with sphincter-saving surgery (SSS). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the operation type affects the prognostic outcome in rectal cancer using a multicenter database in Japan. MethodsThe study involved 2533 patients who underwent APR or SSS and were registered in the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum database, which includes data from 74 centers, between 2003 and 2007. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The secondary endpoints were local recurrence rate (LRR) and pathological radial margin (pRM) status. ResultsMultivariate analysis identified pathological tumor depth, lymph node status, and pRM status to be associated with oncological outcomes (OS, RFS, LRR). Although the oncological outcomes were worse after APR than after SSS in univariate analysis, there was no significant difference in OS (hazard ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–1.37) or RFS (hazard ratio 1.06; 95% CI 0.87–1.30) between APR and SSS. There was also no significant difference in LRR (odds ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.70–1.77). Multivariate analysis showed that operation type was associated with positive pRM (odds ratio 3.13, 95% CI 0.18–0.56). ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in oncological outcomes between APR and SSS for rectal cancer. The risk of positive pRM was higher for APR and performing radial margin-negative surgery is an important factor in improving the oncological outcomes of APR.

Perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Delayed perineal wound healing is a common complication after abdominoperineal resection (APR) in rectal cancer. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the number of patients with delayed wound healing after APR. Secondary aims were to identify risk factors, and describe treatment. Prospectively collected data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry (SCRCR) was used for retrospective analysis of APR performed at Skåne University Hospital Malmö between 2013 and 2018. Medical charts were retrospectively reviewed. Delayed healing was defined as non-healed perineal wound 30days postoperatively. Patients undergoing extralevator APR requiring reconstruction were excluded. Statistical analysis was made using SPSS. Risk factors for impaired wound healing were analyzed using a multivariable model. A total of 162 patients were included, of which 114 underwent standard APR (sAPR) and 48 patients intersphincteric APR (isAPR). In the total population, 69% (111/162) were male, with median age 71 (26-87). The overall healing rate was 52% (85/162); 44% (50/114) in sAPR vs 73% (35/48) in isAPR (P < 0.001). Risk factors for impaired healing after multivariable analysis were BMI > 30 (OR 7.0; CI 95% 1.8-26.2, P = 0.004), reoperation (OR 7.9; CI 95% 1.6-39.8, P = 0.013), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (OR 5.2; CI 95% 1.02-25.1, P = 0.047) and sAPR (OR 2.598; CI 95% 1.05-6.41, P = 0.038). Eight percent (13/162) required an intervention (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3). Delayed perineal wound healing is a frequent complication after APR but the majority could be treated conservatively. Several risk factors were identified. Further studies aiming at interventions reducing delayed perineal wound healing after APR are warranted.

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.

Perineal colostomy after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: advantages and disadvantages

Background: The perineal colostomy is a reconstruction method performed after abdominoperineal resection for rectal malignancy. In this technique, the permanent colostomy is not placed in the left quadrant of the abdomen, but in the perineum.

Rectal washout during abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer has no impact on the oncological outcome.

Intraoperative rectal washout is performed to eliminate exfoliated intraluminal cancer cells and thereby decrease the risk of local recurrence. Rectal washout in abdominoperineal resection has not been studied. The aim of this study was to assess the oncological outcome after rectal washout in abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer and to find evidence as to whether rectal washout should be performed or not. Data for all patients registered in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry who underwent elective surgery with abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer (TNM Stages I-III) between 2007 and 2013 were analysed using multivariable analysis. No significant differences were shown between the rectal washout group and the no rectal washout group for local recurrence [10/265 (3.8%) vs. 87/2160 (4.0%), p=0.84], distant metastasis [51/265 (19.2%) vs. 476/2160 (22.0%), p=0.29] or overall recurrence [53/265 (20.0%) vs. 505/2160 (23.4%), p=0.21]. In multivariable analysis, rectal washout did not significantly affect the oncological outcome in terms of local recurrence, distant metastasis, overall recurrence or 5-year overall or relative survival. Our results do not support routine rectal washout during abdominoperineal resection in order to improve the oncological outcome.

Single-port robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection: a case review of the first four experiences.

Recently, abdominoperineal resection (APR) using a robot has been demonstrated in other studies. However, there has been no report on APR for rectal cancer using the single-port robot (SPR) platform. In response to this research gap, we described the clinical experience of APR using a SPR. From April 2019 to March 2020, APR using a SPR platform was performed in a total of 4 patients. Three patients had a transumbilical approach, and 1 patient had a transstoma site approach. The average operation time was 307 minutes, and the patient docking time to the SPR platform was 133.5 minutes. There were no complications during the operation, and no laparoscopy or open conversion. No reoperation occurred within 30 days. Mild postoperative complications occurred in 2 patients. We found that APR has safety and feasibility in surgery using an SPR platform. There was no intraoperative event and severe postoperative complications.

Quantifying displacement of urogenital organs after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

AimThis study aimed to quantify displacement of urogenital organs after abdominoperineal resection (APR), and to explore patient and treatment characteristics associated with displacement.MethodPatients from 16 centres who underwent APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer (2001–2018) with evaluable preoperative and 6–18 months postoperative radiological imaging were included in the study. Anatomical landmarks on sagittal images were related to a coordinate system based on reference lines between fixed bony structures and absolute displacements were calculated using the Pythagorean theorem. Rotation of landmarks was measured relative to a pubic‐S5 reference line.ResultsThere were 248 patients included of which 171 were men and 77 women. The median displacement of the internal urethral orifice was 25 mm in men (maximum 65), and 17 mm in women (maximum 50). Rotation of the internal urethral orifice was in a caudal direction in 160/170 (94%) of men and 65/73 (89%) of women, with a median of 32 degrees (maximum 85) and 33 degrees (maximum 83), respectively. Displacements of the posterior bladder wall, distal end of prostatic urethra and cervix were significantly correlated with the internal urethral orifice. In linear regression analysis, biological mesh reconstruction of the pelvic floor and visceral interposition were significantly associated with increased displacement of the internal urethral orifice, and female gender and any filling of the presacral space with decreased displacement.ConclusionsSubstantial absolute displacement and rotation of urogenital organs after APR for rectal cancer were observed, but with high variability among both men and women, and being significantly associated with reconstructive interventions.

A comparative multicentre study evaluating gluteal turnover flap for wound closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare perineal wound healing between gluteal turnover flap and primary closure in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer.MethodsPatients who underwent APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer with gluteal turnover flap in two university hospitals (2016–2021) were compared to a multicentre cohort of primary closure (2000–2017). The primary endpoint was uncomplicated perineal wound healing within 30 days. Secondary endpoints were long-term wound healing, related re-interventions, and perineal herniation. The perineal hernia rate was assessed using Kaplan Meier analysis.ResultsTwenty–five patients had a gluteal turnover flap and 194 had primary closure. The uncomplicated perineal wound-healing rate within 30 days was 68% (17/25) after gluteal turnover flap versus 64% (124/194) after primary closure, OR 2.246; 95% CI 0.734–6.876; p = 0.156 in multivariable analysis. No major wound complications requiring surgical re-intervention occurred after flap closure. Eighteen patients with gluteal turnover flap completed 12-month follow-up, and none of them had chronic perineal sinus, compared to 6% (11/173) after primary closure (p = 0.604). The symptomatic 18-month perineal hernia rate after flap closure was 0%, compared to 9% after primary closure (p = 0.184).ConclusionsThe uncomplicated perineal wound-healing rate after the gluteal turnover flap and primary closure after APR is similar, and no chronic perineal sinus or perineal hernia occurred after flap closure. Future studies have to confirm potential benefits of the gluteal turnover flap.

Perineal eventration after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: anatomical, surgical and clinico-pathological landmarks.

Perineal eventration (PE) is a rare complication after the lower rectal cancer resection surgery, affecting the quality of life of the patient. In 5.5 years of evolution, out of 620 patients with rectal cancer treated by curative surgery, 176 patients with lower ampullary rectal cancer treated by abdominoperineal resection (APR) with the closure of the defect by direct suture of the perineal floor were selected. Ten (5.6%) of them were diagnosed with PE. This paper shows the results of a retrospective study, which compares the clinico-pathological and therapeutic aspects of a subgroup of 166 patients (subgroup I) with APR without PE and a subgroup of 10 patients (subgroup II) with PE. Starting from the question of whether aspects can influence the evolution of PE, we aimed to investigate the similarities and differences between these two groups, from the histological, clinical and therapeutic points of view. Regarding the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging, we encountered the following aspects: for the subgroup II with PE, pT3 predominated, stages N0 and N1 were equal (50%) and the absence of metastases (M0) was found in all cases; in subgroup I, pT3 and N0 also predominated, followed by N1 and N2, and for stage M, M0 is predominant, followed by M1. For the clinical profile of the PE group, the symptoms were characteristic, with the presence of the usual triggering factors [hysterectomy, radiochemotherapy and wide resection surgery – extralevatorial APR]. The therapeutic approach revealed various aspects, including plastic surgery procedures (direct closure, meshes, flaps) used in pelvic reconstruction. The accurate surgical technique applied in order to achieve oncological safety allowed for a longer survival, which favored the appearance of PE in addition to the other favoring factors. Our results underlined the clinico-pathological profile of the two subgroups, without being able to establish a correlation with the appearance and evolution of PE. However, the clinico-pathological risk factors for this condition are not yet fully defined. Therefore, reports based on the experience in the diagnosis and treatment of PE should bring valuable data, aiming to create the knowledge framework for prevention.

Combined Robotic-Assisted Bio-absorbable Mesh Placement and Gluteal Fasciocutaneous Flap Reconstruction: a Novel Technique for the Repair of a Symptomatic Perineal Hernia Following Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer has predominated over the common technique during recent years providing better oncologic results. However, extralevator abdominoperineal resection has been associated to a higher incidence of wound complications and perineal hernia. Several risk factors including preoperative pelvic radiotherapy, laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection, women, previous hysterectomy, obesity, coccygectomy, long small bowel mesentery, postoperative wound infection, and open pelvic peritoneum have been correlated to increased perineal hernia rate. Despite the minor clinical manifestation of a perineal hernia, its effect on the quality of life remains remarkable. Therefore, the surgical management of a perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection is still a challenge for colorectal surgeons. Several techniques have been used including biologic meshes and myocutaneous flaps. Nevertheless, the ideal technique has not yet been proved. During last years, colorectal surgeons have utilized minimally invasive techniques such as robotic repair of perineal hernias. We presented the first case in the literature of a combined approach of robotic-assisted repair using a bio-absorbable mesh and a gluteal fasciocutaneous flap reconstruction.

Surgery for Complicated Stomal Prolapse: Is the Altemeier Technique an Option? A Report of Three Cases

Abstract Introduction The incidence of stomal prolapse ranges from 2% to 22%. The risk factors include colostomy, the short length of the stoma, obesity, emergency surgery, and the improper (or even absence of) marking of the preoperative site for the stoma. Complicated stomal prolapse associated with severe mucosal irritation, ischemic changes, or bleeding requires surgical intervention. Objective To describe the use of the Altemeier technique in the management of cases of complicated prolapsed stoma after failure of the local medical measures and manual reduction. Methods Case series of three patients with past history of abdominoperineal resection of rectal cancer and permanent end colostomy presented with irreducible prolapse of the stoma. After the failure of the local measures and manual reduction, urgent surgical intervention using the modified Altemeier technique was necessary. Results The modified Altemeier technique is simple, presents low risk of operative and postoperative complications, besides enabling an early recovery, with a lower risk of recurrence during the first 6 months after the repair. Conclusion The modified Altemeier technique may be a valid therapeutic modality in the setting of complicated prolapsed stoma.

A tailored approach to abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: multicentre analysis of short-term outcomes and impact on oncological survival.

Abdominoperineal resection of the rectum has evolved over the last century, with few modifications until 2007, when extralevator abdominoperineal resection was introduced, which improved local disease control but resulted in a significant rise in perineal complications. We adopted a modified approach in which dissection was tailored according to magnetic resonance-defined tumour involvement. The aim of this study was to assess short-term and long-term oncological outcomes following a tailored abdominoperineal resection (APR) approach. This study was a retrospective review of prospectively maintained databases at three centres: Portsmouth NHS Trust (UK), Poole General Hospital (UK) and Champalimaud's Cancer Foundation, Portugal. The study included consecutive patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection from October 2008 until April 2018 under the supervision of the senior author. Oncological outcomes, including overall survival and disease-free survival, were used as the main outcome measures. A total of 584 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery during the study period. The APR ratio was 65/584 (11%). The median age was 66 years. Neoadjuvant treatment was administered to 74% of patients. Of the patients, 91% underwent surgery via a minimally invasive approach. The median hospital stay was 7 days. Patients were followed up for a median of 41 months. Only four patients had positive resection margins. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 64% and 62%, respectively. Our data suggest that tailored APR has similar short-term and long-term oncological outcomes compared with extralevator abdominoperineal resection but reduced perineal wound complications. We believe this approach could be a safe alternative but recommend a larger sample size to accurately assess its effectiveness.

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

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. The study aimed to compare the perioperative, oncologic, and economic outcomes of the robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. This was a retrospective, case-matched patient cohort. This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. 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. 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. 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. The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and the variety in concomitant procedures. 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 . 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 ).