Sigmar Stelzner1, Carsta Koehler, Juliane Stelzer, Anja Sims, Helmut Witzigmann. 1. Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Dresden-Friedrichstadt General Hospital Teaching Hospital of the Technical University of Dresden, Friedrichstr. 41, 01067, Dresden, Germany. Stelzner-Si@khdf.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) as the gold standard for rectal cancer surgery, oncologic results appeared to be inferior for abdominoperineal excision (APE) as compared to anterior resection. This has been attributed to the technique of standard APE creating a waist at the level of the tumor-bearing segment. This systematic review investigates outcome of both standard and extended techniques of APE regarding inadvertent bowel perforation, circumferential margin (CRM) involvement, and local recurrence. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify all articles reporting on APE after the introduction of TME using Medline, Ovid, and Embase. Extended APE was defined as operations that resected the levator ani muscle close to its origin. All other techniques were taken to be standard. Studies so identified were evaluated using a validated instrument for assessing nonrandomized studies. Rates for perforation, CRM involvement, and local recurrence were compared using chi-square statistics. RESULTS: In the extended group, 1,097 patients, and in the standard group, 4,147 patients could be pooled for statistical analysis. The rate of inadvertent bowel perforation and the rate of CRM involvement for extended vs. standard APE was 4.1% vs. 10.4% (relative risk reduction 60.6%, p = 0.004) and 9.6% vs. 15.4% (relative risk reduction 37.7%, p = 0.022), respectively. The local recurrence rate was 6.6% vs. 11.9% (relative risk reduction 44.5%, p < 0.001) for the two groups. CONCLUSION: This systematic review suggests that extended techniques of APE result in superior oncologic outcome as compared to standard techniques.
BACKGROUND: After introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) as the gold standard for rectal cancer surgery, oncologic results appeared to be inferior for abdominoperineal excision (APE) as compared to anterior resection. This has been attributed to the technique of standard APE creating a waist at the level of the tumor-bearing segment. This systematic review investigates outcome of both standard and extended techniques of APE regarding inadvertent bowel perforation, circumferential margin (CRM) involvement, and local recurrence. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify all articles reporting on APE after the introduction of TME using Medline, Ovid, and Embase. Extended APE was defined as operations that resected the levator ani muscle close to its origin. All other techniques were taken to be standard. Studies so identified were evaluated using a validated instrument for assessing nonrandomized studies. Rates for perforation, CRM involvement, and local recurrence were compared using chi-square statistics. RESULTS: In the extended group, 1,097 patients, and in the standard group, 4,147 patients could be pooled for statistical analysis. The rate of inadvertent bowel perforation and the rate of CRM involvement for extended vs. standard APE was 4.1% vs. 10.4% (relative risk reduction 60.6%, p = 0.004) and 9.6% vs. 15.4% (relative risk reduction 37.7%, p = 0.022), respectively. The local recurrence rate was 6.6% vs. 11.9% (relative risk reduction 44.5%, p < 0.001) for the two groups. CONCLUSION: This systematic review suggests that extended techniques of APE result in superior oncologic outcome as compared to standard techniques.
Authors: D F de Haas-Kock; C G Baeten; J J Jager; J A Langendijk; L J Schouten; A Volovics; J W Arends Journal: Br J Surg Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: J Strassburg; A Lewin; K Ludwig; L Kilian; J Linke; V Loy; P Knuth; O Püttcher; U Ruehl; F Stöckmann; M Hackenthal; W Hopfenmüller; A Huppertz Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2007-02-06 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Richard P Baker; Emma E White; Liviu Titu; Graeme S Duthie; Peter W R Lee; John R T Monson Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: V Moutardier; E Tardat; M Giovannini; B Lelong; J Guiramand; V Magnin; G Houvenaeghel; J R Delpero Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Christian Wittekind; Carolyn Compton; Phil Quirke; Iris Nagtegaal; Susanne Merkel; Paul Hermanek; Leslie H Sobin Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alexander T Hawkins; David L Berger; Paul C Shellito; Patrica Sylla; Liliana Bordeianou Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: O Jannasch; A Udelnow; G Romano; A Dziki; D Pavalkis; H Lippert; P Mroczkowski Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 3.445