Conventional Abdominoperineal Resection Research Articles

A short-term study of laparoscopic-dominant individualised levator ani resection in abdominoperineal resection: A retrospective investigation.

The objective is to investigate if laparoscopic-dominant abdominoperineal resection (LDAPR) with individualised levator ani resection inhibits local recurrence (LR) and prolongs survival as compared to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR). Rectal cancer surgery cases were retrospectively identified from September 2014 to December 2019. LDAPR-treated group (55 patients) and the APR-treated group (71 patients) were included in the study. The operation time, circumferential resection margin (CRM), intraoperative tumor surgery (ITP), post-operative complications, the 2-year overall survival (OS) and LR were compared in the two groups. The CRM and ITP were significantly reduced in the LDAPR as compared to the APR group (3.6% vs. 16.9%, t = 5.522, P = 0.019; 3.6% vs. 14.1%, t = 3.926, P = 0.048). In terms of post-operative complications, the incidence of urinary retention in LDAPR was significantly reduced than the APR group (10.9% vs. 25.4%, χ2 = 4.139, P = 0.041). Similarly, perineal pain at 6 months or 1 year after surgery was significantly down-regulated in LDAPR than in the APR group (72.7% vs. 88.7%, χ2 = 5.320, P = 0.021; 18.2% vs. 43.2%, χ2 = 8.288, P = 0.004). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the post-operative complications between the LDAPR and APR groups. Finally, LDAPR led to a significantly improved 2-year OS and a reduced LR compared to APR. LDAPR reduces CMR, ITP and LR and simplified the perineum operation, subsequently protecting the pelvic autonomic nerves. Compared to the conventional APR, LDAPR is a promising procedure worth adopting for rectal cancer treatment.

The use of the internal pudendal artery perforator flap after abdominoperineal reconstruction: A single center study

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is still a valuable option in the presence of cancer recurrences or salvage surgery. Primary perineal closure after conventional APR curries a high rate of wound complications. A multidisciplinary approach with perineal soft tissue reconstruction surgical time improves the immediate and long-term prognosis of these patients. The aim of the study is to report our experience with the use of the internal pudendal artery perforator flap in perineal region reconstruction after APR. We performed 11 perineal region reconstructions after conventional APR between September 2016 and December 2020. In 8 cases the reconstruction was performed on previously irradiated tissues while in 2 cases the radiotherapy was carried out on the perineal tissues solely for adjuvant therapy. A rotation perforating flap was harvested in 8 cases, an advance island flap in 2 cases, and a propeller type in one case. All 11 flaps survived with no immediate postoperative major complications. Only one case showed dehiscence of the donor site wound healed with conservative treatment. Average hospitalization time was 11 days internal pudendal artery perforator flap represents a valid and reliable reconstructive solution after APR showing low complication rates and minimal donor site morbidity even in patients with previous radiotherapy.

Biosynthetic Mesh Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Cross Relation of Surgical Healing and Oncological Outcomes: A Multicentric Observational Study.

Local wound complications are among the most relevant sequelae after an abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer. One of the proposed techniques to improve the postoperative recovery and to accelerate the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy is the mesh reinforcement of the perineal wound. The aim of the current study is to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes after APR performed with a biosynthetic mesh reconstruction versus the conventional procedure. From 2015 to 2020, in two tertiary centres, the surgical outcomes, the wound events (i.e., surgical site infections, wound dehiscence and the complete healing time) and the oncological outcomes (i.e., time length to start adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy, an over 8-week delay in chemotherapy and the recurrence rate) were retrospectively analysed in patients undergoing APR reinforced with biosynthetic mesh (Group A) and conventional APR (Group B). Results Sixty-one patients were treated with APR (25 in Group A and 36 in Group B). Patients in Group A presented lower time for: healing (16 versus 24 days, p = 0.015), inferior perineal wound dehiscence rates (one versus nine cases, p = 0.033), an earlier adjuvant therapy start (26 versus 70 days, p = 0.003) and a lower recurrence rate (16.6% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.152). In our series, the use of a biosynthetic mesh for the neo-perineum reconstruction after a Miles' procedure has resulted in safe, reproducible results affected by limited complications, guarantying a rapid start of the adjuvant therapy with clear benefits in oncological outcomes. Further randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are needed to validate these results.

Malignant Melanoma of Anorectum: A Report of Five Cases

BACKGROUND: Anorectal melanoma (ARM) is an extremely rare, highly aggressive form of a tumor with the worst prognosis. ARM contributes 0.5% of all melanoma cases. Its presentation is similar to that of adenocarcinoma of the rectum, hemorrhoids, or solitary rectal ulcer, the incorrect clinical diagnosis or delayed diagnosis is often made. The definite diagnosis is only made through histopathology in which immunohistochemical stains positive to S-100, Melan A, and HMB-45 which differentiates it from adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Because of the limited number of patients and retrospective design of studies to date, there is no proven efficacy of abdominoperineal resection (APR) over local excision (LE) in terms of survival. Furthermore, this neoplasm is quite resistant to chemoradiotherapy. It has a median survival of 18 months and a 5-year survival rate of only 6%. PRESENTATION OF OUR CASES: Here, we report 5 rare cases of anorectal malignant melanoma presented to our institute between 2018 to 2022, who were treated with APR and diversion colostomy. The first case is a 27-years old young female with typical complaints, she was diagnosed ARM with locoregional metastasis. Only a diversion colostomy was performed and referred to an oncologist for palliation. Our second case is a 68-years old male with a similar complaint who presented relatively early and was diagnosed with localized disease. Conventional APR was performed and referred for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, but the patient refused. However, the lump recurred after 6 months of tumor excision. The third case is a 29 years old male again early presentation with a similar complaint labeled as localized diseased. The conventional APR was performed followed by adjuvant chemoradiation; patient presented with metastatic disease after 6 months. The fourth case is a 60-years old male with typical history and diagnosed with localized disease. Conventional Extra-levator APR was performed followed by adjuvant therapy, but patient developed recurrence of disease with mets after 4 months. The fifth case is a 39-years old female diagnosed as ARM, had advance disease and metastatic deposits at the time of presentation, refused any palliative treatment. The study aims to evaluate our experience in treating this neoplasm. CONCLUSION: Because of the rarity of this neoplasm, no proper trial has been conducted so far. The role of chemoradiotherapy is questionable and the surgical approach varies from radical APR to conservative LE. No surgical approach has been standardized in terms of survival.

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision in distal rectal cancer patients: a retrospective comparative study

At present, abdominoperineal excision with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is one of the treatment modalities of distal rectal cancer. Our study analyzed the effects of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) compared with laparoscopic conventional abdominoperineal resection(cAPR) in the treatment of distal rectal cancer. Retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinicopathological data of 177 distal rectal cancer patients treated with a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection between 2011 and 2018. The patients were divided into four groups as follows: ELAPE without nCRT (group A), cAPR without nCRT (group B), ELAPE with long-course nCRT (group C) and cAPR with long-course nCRT (group D). Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), local recurrence rate, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS) did not differ between group A and group B. The rate of positive CRM in group C was lower than group D (4.4% vs. 11.9%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.377). The 3-year local recurrence rate in group C was lower compared with group D (6.6% vs. 16.7%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.135). Three-year DFS and 3-year OS were not different between groups C and D. This study showed that the effect of laparoscopic ELAPE in patients with low-risk rectal cancer is similar to laparoscopic cAPR, revealing that laparoscopic cAPR can be routinely selected for patients with low-risk rectal cancer. Furthermore, laparoscopic ELAPE has a tendency to reduce the rate of positive CRM and local recurrence in patients with high-risk rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ELAPE can be routinely considered for patients with high-risk rectal cancer.

Short-term advantages of ELAPE over APR

Introduction Conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR) has a high rate of local recurrence. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) can potentially diminish the rate of intraoperative tumour perforation (IOTP) and can provide wider circumferential resection margins (CRM) but at the price of higher perineal complication rate. The aim of our study was to compare the short term results of conventional APR to ELAPE. Materials and methods Thirty-five consecutively operated APRs compared to 38 also consecutively operated ELAPEs. Prospectively collected short-term outcome data were analysed retrospectively. Results There was no difference in demographics, disease stage or tumour location between groups. IOTP rate and CRM positivity rates were similar between the two groups (p = .608). No difference was found in major (Clavien-Dindo III–V) complications, but we found statistically significant difference in minor (Clavien-Dindo I–II) complications (p = .01) in favour of the ELAPE group. Frequency of perineal SSI was lower in ELAPE group, but the difference was not significant (p = .320). Intraoperative iatrogenic complications occurred at significantly lower rate in ELAPE group (p = .035). Also, postoperative morbidity connected with the dissection in the perineal phase (e.g. urine incontinence, urinary retention) was significantly lower (p = .018) after ELAPE. Discussion and conclusions In our experience ELAPE operations may diminish the rate of Clavien-Dindo I–II complications compared to conventional APR. This effect is ensuing from the decrease of intraoperative iatrogenic complications and from the decrease of minor postoperative complications.

What is the advantage of rectal amputation with an initial perineal approach for primary anorectal carcinoma?

BackgroundRectal amputation (RA) remains an important surgical procedure for salvage despite advances in sphincter-preserving resection, including intersphincteric resection. The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of RA with an initial perineal approach to those of RA with an initial abdominal approach (conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR)) for primary anorectal cancer.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of 48 patients who underwent RA with an initial perineal approach (perineal group) and 21 patients who underwent RA with an initial abdominal approach (conventional group).ResultsFor the perineal group, the operation time was shorter than that for the conventional group (313 vs. 388 min, p = 0.027). The postoperative complication rate was similar between the two groups (43.8 vs. 47.6%, p = 0.766). Perineal wound complications (PWCs) were significantly fewer in the perineal group than in the conventional group (22.9 vs. 57.1%, p = 0.006). All 69 patients underwent complete TME, but positive CRM was significantly higher in the conventional group than in the perineal group (0 vs. 19.0%, p = 0.011). There were no significant differences in the recurrence (43.8 vs. 47.6%, p = 0.689), 5-year disease-free survival (63.7% vs. 56.7%, p = 0.665) and 5-year overall survival rates (82.5% vs. 66.2%, p = 0.323) between the two groups.ConclusionThese data suggest that RA with an initial perineal approach for selective primary anorectal carcinoma is advantageous in minimizing PWCs and positive CRMs. Further investigations on the advantages of this approach are necessary.

Is extralevator abdominoperineal resection necessary for low rectal carcinoma in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy era?

Background: We aimed to compare the short-term surgical and early surgical oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator APR (ELAPR) in patients with low rectal carcinoma that have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT), whose abdominal procedures were performed laparoscopically.Methods: One hundred and four patients who underwent APR or ELAPR for stage II/III low rectal carcinoma NACRT between 2013 and 2016 were evaluated by reviewing the standard charts for colorectal carcinoma.Results: Median follow-up for patients in APR group was 56 months(24–67 months) and 52 months(27–64 months) for ELAPR group. The postoperative complication rates were higher in ELAPR than in APR (perineal wound infection 38% vs. 22.5%(p = .03), perineal wound dehiscence 57% vs. 25%(p = .01), persistent perineal pain 28.5% vs. 13%(p = .01), urinary dysfunction 23% vs. 14.5%(p = .02), reoperation 16.5% vs. 4.8%(p = .03), respectively). Circumferential resection margin positivity, the number of lymph nodes dissected, and the rate of intra-operative perforation of the tumor were similar for both surgical techniques. Local recurrence rates at postoperative 2 years were also similar after APR and ELAPR (8% vs. 9.5%, p = .2).Conclusion: We conclude that in the era of routinely used NACRT, ELAPR is not superior to conventional APR for stage II/III low rectal carcinomas. ELAPR is associated with increased morbidity and has no short-term surgical oncological advantage over APR.

Perineal colostomy following abdomino-perineal resection for rectal cancer-A case report

The management of ultralow rectal cancers within 2 cm from the dentate line is still challenging. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is the gold standard in the treatment of ultralow rectal cancers. Conventional APR involves the construction of a left iliac fossa (LIF) end colostomy. The taboo associated with a permanent abdominal colostomy results in a poor self-esteem and a poor quality of life. Pseudocontinent perineal colostomy (PCPC) is an alternative reconstruction technique following APR in which the colostomy is placed in the perineum and a graft of smooth colonic muscle tightly surrounds the lowered colon. We present the case of a young unmarried gentleman who underwent an APR and living with a left iliac fossa colostomy who underwent this procedure. The case is of interest since a similar case report could not be found from India and also since the PCPC in our case is done as a secondary procedure.

Selective extra levator versus conventional abdomino perineal resection: experience from a tertiary-care center.

To compare extra levator abdomino perineal resection (ELAPER) with conventional abdominoperineal resection (APER) in terms of short-term oncological and clinical outcomes. This is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database including all the patients of rectal cancer who underwent APER at Tata Memorial Center between July 1, 2013, and January 31, 2015. Short-term oncological parameters evaluated included circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM), tumor site perforation, and number of nodes harvested. Peri operative outcomes included blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative perineal wound complications, and 30-day mortality. The χ(2)-test was used to compare the results between the two groups. Forty-two cases of ELAPER and 78 cases of conventional APER were included in the study. Levator involvement was significantly higher in the ELAPER compared with the conventional group; otherwise, the two groups were comparable in all the aspects. CRM involvement was seen in seven patients (8.9%) in the conventional group compared with three patients (7.14%) in the ELAPER group. Median hospital stay was significantly longer with ELAPER. The univariate analysis of the factors influencing CRM positivity did not show any significance. ELAPER should be the preferred approach for low rectal tumors with involvement of levators. For those cases in which levators are not involved, as shown in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the current evidence is insufficient to recommend ELAPER over conventional APER. This stresses the importance of preoperative MRI in determining the best approach for an individual patient.

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.

PurposeThis study compared the perioperative and pathologic outcomes between an extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the prone position and a conventional APR.MethodsBetween 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.ResultsAge 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%]).ConclusionThe 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.

Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection in the Prone Position.

See Article on Page 12-19 The conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been the gold standard for the surgical treatment of low rectal cancer. Regardless of the approach, the APR represented a uniquely challenging procedure where the surgeon is expected to reduce the circumferential resection margin (CRM), local recurrence (LR) and wound complications. For cancer patients, excision of the anal canal with a wide circumferential margin, including a cylindrical cuff of the levator, muscle was introduced. As described by West et al. [1], compared with standard surgery, the extralevator APR (ELAPR) may reduce CRM involvement (from 49.6% to 20.3%, P < 0.001) and intraoperative perforation (IOP) (from 28.2% to 8.2%, P < 0.001), but with an increase in perineal wound complications (from 20% to 38.0%, P = 0.019). In contrast, they did not demonstrate the statistically differences in CRMs and wound complications between the groups. A metaanalysis study by De Nardi et al. [2] found significant differences in the CRM involvement rate (odds ratio [OR], 2.9; P < 0.001), intraoperative perforation (OR, 4.30; P < 0.001), local recurrence rate (OR, 2.52; P = 0.02), and length of hospital stay (OR, 1.06; P < 0.001) in favor of the ELAPR group. Additionally, perineal wound complications were higher in the extended group (OR, 0.62; P = 0.007). Yang et al. [3] reported that ELAPR had a lower rate of intraoperative perforation and local recurrence than APR in terms of short follow-up time. Yang et al. [4] reported better results in laparoscopic ELAPR: a 6.1% CRM rate, 15.2% morbidity, and no mortality. The perineal dissection can be performed in the lithotomy position or in the prone position after closure of the abdomen and creation of the colostomy. The author [5] reported that compared to the conventional APR, the ELAPR in the prone position did not have advantages in terms of perioperative complications and pathologic outcomes such as the CRM. In my opinion, the ELAPR in the prone position for treating patients with lower rectal or locally-recurrent pelvic cancer allows better exposure of the operative field and more precise perineal dissection according to the tissue plane and leaves open the possibility of an en-bloc combined resection of the sacrum or coccyx in difficult cases with sacral invasion. However, we need further randomized controlled studies to clearly identify the advantages and the disadvantages of the ELAPR in the prone position.

PTH-352 Selective extra levator versus standard abdominoperineal resection - experience from a tertiary care centre

Introduction Comparison of Extralevator abdomino perineal resection [ELAPER] with conventional Abdominoperineal resection[APER] with regard to short term oncological and clinical outcomes. Method Patients with low rectal cancer who underwent abdomino perineal resection in TMH during the time period from July 2013 to January 2015 were included. Decision to perform ELAPER was based on levator involvement, with APER being performed in those with levators free. Short term oncological outcomescomparedincluded CRM, tumour site perforation [TSP] and number of nodes dissected. Clinical outcomes compared included post-operative perineal wound complications, need for plastic reconstruction and hospital stay. Results One hundred twenty patients with low rectal cancers underwent abdomino perineal resection during the defined study period. Out of these forty had undergone ELAPER. Both groups were comparable in the baseline characteristics except levator involvement which was significantly higher in ELAPER group. CRM involvement was seen in 8.75% with APER compared to 5% with ELAPER. Median blood loss was 400 ml with APER compared to 500 ml with ELAPER. Plastic reconstruction was required in 5% of APR and 17.5% of ELAPER. Conclusion Selective use of ELAPER is warranted in cases of low rectal cancer particularly when levators are involved by the tumour on MRI. Disclosure of interest None Declared.

Application of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision in locally advanced low rectal cancer.

Background:When compared with conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR), extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of local recurrence for the treatment of locally advanced low rectal cancer. Combined with the laparoscopic technique, laparoscopic ELAPE (LELAPE) has the potential to reduce invasion and hasten postoperative recovery. In this study, we aim to investigate the advantages of LELAPE in comparison with conventional APR.Methods:From October 2010 to February 2013, 23 patients with low rectal cancer (T3–4N0–2M0) underwent LELAPE; while during the same period, 25 patients were treated with conventional APR. The patient characteristics, intraoperative data, postoperative complications, and follow-up results were retrospectively compared and analyzed.Results:The basic patient characteristics were similar; but the total operative time for the LELAPE was longer than that of the conventional APR group (P = 0.014). However, the operative time for the perineal portion was comparable between the two groups (P = 0.328). The LELAPE group had less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.022), a lower bowel perforation rate (P = 0.023), and a positive circumferential margin (P = 0.028). Moreover, the patients, who received the LELAPE, had a lower postoperative Visual Analog Scale, quicker recovery of bowel function (P = 0.001), and a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.047). However, patients in the LELAPE group suffered more chronic perineal pain (P = 0.002), which may be related to the coccygectomy (P = 0.033). Although the metastasis rate and mortality rate were similar between the two groups, the local recurrence rate of the LELAPE group was statistically improved (P = 0.047).Conclusions:When compared with conventional APR, LELAPE has the potential to reduce the risk of local recurrence, and decreases operative invasion for the treatment of locally advanced 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

BackgroundThe 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. MethodsSixty-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. ResultsBlood 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). ConclusionsELAPE 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.

Perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Impaired perineal wound healing has become a significant clinical problem after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. The increased use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy and wider excisions might have contributed to this problem. The primary aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the impact of radiotherapy and an extralevator approach on perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. In March 2014, electronic databases were searched. Studies describing any outcome measure on perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer were included. The primary end point was overall perineal wound problems within 30 days after conventional or extralevator abdominoperineal resection with or without neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Secondary end points were primary wound healing, perineal hernia rate, and the effect of biological mesh closure on perineal wound problems. A total of 32 studies were included. The pooled percentage of perineal wound problems after primary perineal wound closure in patients who did not undergo neoadjuvant radiotherapy was 15.3% (95% CI, 12.1-19.2) after conventional abdominoperineal resection and 14.8% (95% CI, 9.5-22.4) after extralevator abdominoperineal resection. After neoadjuvant radiotherapy, perineal wound problems occurred in 30.2% (95% CI, 19.2-44.0) after conventional abdominoperineal resection and in 37.6% (95% CI, 18.6-61.4) after extralevator abdominoperineal resection. Radiotherapy significantly increased perineal wound problems after abdominoperineal resection (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.45-3.40; p < 0.001). After biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor following extralevator abdominoperineal resection with neoadjuvant radiotherapy, the percentage of perineal wound problems was 7.3% (95% CI, 1.5-29.3). Heterogeneity was high for some analyses. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy significantly increases perineal wound problems after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, whereas the extralevator approach seems not to be of significant importance.

Oncological superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal resection over conventional abdominoperineal resection: a meta-analysis

The oncological superiority, i.e., lower circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, lower intraoperative perforation (IOP), and local recurrence (LR) rates, of extralevator abdominoperineal resection (EAPR) over conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is inconclusive. This meta-analysis systematically compared the rates of CRM involvement, IOP, and LR of rectal cancer patients treated by EAPR and APR, respectively. An electronic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library through May 2013 was performed by two investigators independently to identify studies evaluating the CRM involvement, IOP, and LR rates of EAPR and APR, and search results were cross-checked to reach a consensus. Data was extracted accordingly. A Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI). Six studies with a total of 881 patients were included. Meta-analysis of CRM involvement and IOP data from all six studies demonstrated significant lower CRM involvement (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.23-0.58; P < 0.0001) and IOP (OR, 0.31; 95%CI, 0.12-0.80; P = 0.02) rates of EAPR. Data from four studies also showed that EAPR was associated with a lower LR rate than APR (OR, 0.27; 95%CI, 0.08-0.95; P = 0.04). No differences of between-study heterogeneity or publication bias were seen in any of the meta-analyses. Extralevator abdominoperineal resection could achieve better CRM involvement outcome and lower IOP and LR rates, demonstrating an oncological superiority over conventional abdominoperineal resection.

Mesh-based transperineal repair of a perineal hernia after a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

A perineal hernia (PH) is formed by a protrusion of intra-abdominal viscera through a defect in the pelvic floor. This is a rare complication after a conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR). However, the risk of a PH may be increased after a laparoscopic resection because this technique can cause fewer postoperative adhesions, predisposing the small bowel to sliding down toward the pelvis. However, only a few case reports describe the transperineal approach for the repair of a PH after a laparoscopic APR. We present a case of a PH after a laparoscopic APR; the PH was repaired with synthetic mesh by using a transperineal approach. A transperineal approach using a mesh to reconstruct the pelvic floor is less invasive and more effective. We suggest that this technique should probably be the first choice for treating an uncomplicated PH that occurs after a laparoscopic APR.

Results of extralevator abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer including quality of life and long-term wound complications

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer has been adopted by centers to improve oncological outcome. The present study aimed to investigate oncological results, wound complications, and quality of life (QoL). Patients who underwent extralevator APR for rectal cancer between 2007 and 2011 were identified retrospectively. QoL status was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CR30 and CR29 questionnaires. Thirty laparoscopic (n = 7) or open (n = 23) extralevator APRs were performed in 17 male and 13 female patients. The mortality was zero; circumferential margin involvement occurred in two cases (6.7 %); and there was no bowel perforation. No local recurrence was noted after a median follow-up of 28.3 months; however, six patients died, and eight developed distant metastases. Perineal wound complications were found in 46.6 % of patients, and all were managed conservatively. Fifty percent of the patients reported persistent perineal pain at the follow-up exam. QoL was assessed 7 to 46 months after surgery, and the global health status (70.6) was comparable to the EORTC reference group and published conventional APR series. The QLQ-CR29 module revealed high mean symptom scores for urinary frequency (48.1), incontinence (30.5), and impotence (79.1). Extralevator APR can control local recurrence but not distant metastases of low rectal cancer. The extended perineal resection appears not to decrease general QoL, but it results in a high rate of perineal wound complications. Genitourinary functions are often impaired, even in the long term, and further improvements to the technique must seek to reduce genitourinary harm.

Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Carcinoma with Transabdominal Levator Transection

The extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPR) is a new surgical technique for patients with low advanced rectal cancer. This technique requires an extra excision of the levator muscles to avoid the surgical waist caused by the conventional abdominoperineal resection, with the patient's position changed to a prone jackknife position and using a myocutaneous flap to repair the pelvic defect. To simplify this operation, we applied a laparoscopic technique to perform controlled transabdominal transection of the levator muscles under direct visualization without a position change and pelvic floor reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (HADM). In our department from 2010-2011, six patients with rectal adenocarcinoma within 3 cm of the anal verge underwent laparoscopic ELAPR with transabdominal levator transection, with no position change during the perineal operation. In three patients, pelvic reconstruction was performed with HADM. All procedures were successfully performed without any intraoperative complications, laparoscopy-associated morbidity, or conversion to the open approach. The mean operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 186.7 min and 101.7 ml. All specimens had a cylindrical shape with levator muscles attached to the mesorectum and negative circumferential margins. No complications were seen with the use of HADM. Laparoscopic transabdominal transection of the levator muscles without position change and with pelvic floor reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix mesh is feasible. With the transection of the levator muscles under laparoscopic surveillance, the procedure of the extralevator abdominoperineal resection, which is aggressively invasive and operatively complicated, is simplified and has an advantage of minimal invasiveness.