INTRODUCTION: Conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer has a higher local recurrence and reduced survival compared to anterior resection. An extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) may improve outcome through removal of increased tissue in the distal rectum. Experience with ELAPE is limited and no studies have reported on quality of life (QOL) following this procedure. We describe a minimally invasive approach to ELAPE within an enhanced recovery programme, and present short-term results and QOL analyses. METHODS: All laparoscopic ELAPEs were included in a prospective database. Demographics, intra-operative and post-operative outcomes were evaluated. Postoperative QOL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29. RESULTS: Thirteen laparoscopic ELAPEs were performed over a two-year period. All were enrolled in an enhanced recovery programme. The median age was 76. The median tumour height was 20 mm (range: 0-50 mm) from the dentate line and all patients received neoadjuvant treatment. The median duration of surgery was 300 minutes (range: 120-488 minutes), the mean blood loss was 150 ml and one procedure was converted to open surgery. There was no circumferential resection margin involvement or tumour perforation. The median duration of use of intravenous fluid, patient controlled analgesia and urinary catheterisation was 2, 2 and 2.5 days respectively and the median length of hospital stay was 7.5 days. Two patients developed perineal wound dehiscence. QOL analysis revealed high global health status (90.8), physical (91.3), emotional (98.3) and social functioning (100) scores, which compared favourably with EORTC reference values and published QOL scores following conventional abdominoperineal excision. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ELAPE within an enhanced recovery setting is a feasible and safe approach with acceptable short-term outcomes and post-operative quality of life.
INTRODUCTION: Conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer has a higher local recurrence and reduced survival compared to anterior resection. An extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) may improve outcome through removal of increased tissue in the distal rectum. Experience with ELAPE is limited and no studies have reported on quality of life (QOL) following this procedure. We describe a minimally invasive approach to ELAPE within an enhanced recovery programme, and present short-term results and QOL analyses. METHODS: All laparoscopic ELAPEs were included in a prospective database. Demographics, intra-operative and post-operative outcomes were evaluated. Postoperative QOL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29. RESULTS: Thirteen laparoscopic ELAPEs were performed over a two-year period. All were enrolled in an enhanced recovery programme. The median age was 76. The median tumour height was 20 mm (range: 0-50 mm) from the dentate line and all patients received neoadjuvant treatment. The median duration of surgery was 300 minutes (range: 120-488 minutes), the mean blood loss was 150 ml and one procedure was converted to open surgery. There was no circumferential resection margin involvement or tumour perforation. The median duration of use of intravenous fluid, patient controlled analgesia and urinary catheterisation was 2, 2 and 2.5 days respectively and the median length of hospital stay was 7.5 days. Two patients developed perineal wound dehiscence. QOL analysis revealed high global health status (90.8), physical (91.3), emotional (98.3) and social functioning (100) scores, which compared favourably with EORTC reference values and published QOL scores following conventional abdominoperineal excision. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ELAPE within an enhanced recovery setting is a feasible and safe approach with acceptable short-term outcomes and post-operative quality of life.
Authors: P M King; J M Blazeby; P Ewings; P J Franks; R J Longman; A H Kendrick; R M Kipling; R H Kennedy Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Iris D Nagtegaal; Cornelius J H van de Velde; Corrie A M Marijnen; Jan H J M van Krieken; Philip Quirke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roger Marr; Kevin Birbeck; James Garvican; Christopher P Macklin; Nicholas J Tiffin; Wendy J Parsons; Michael F Dixon; Nicholas P Mapstone; David Sebag-Montefiore; Nigel Scott; David Johnston; Peter Sagar; Paul Finan; Philip Quirke Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nicholas P West; Paul J Finan; Claes Anderin; Johan Lindholm; Torbjorn Holm; Philip Quirke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S L Kipling; K Young; J D Foster; N J Smart; A E Hunter; E Cooper; N K Francis Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: A Xanthis; D Greenberg; B Jha; O Olafimihan; R Miller; N Fearnhead; J Davies; N Hall Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Gijsbert D Musters; Willem A Bemelman; Robbert J I Bosker; Jacobus W A Burger; Peter van Duijvendijk; Boudewijn van Etten; Anna A W van Geloven; Eelco J R de Graaf; Christiaan Hoff; Niels de Korte; Jeroen W A Leijtens; Harm J T Rutten; Baljit Singh; Anthony van de Ven; Ronald J C L M Vuylsteke; Johannes H W de Wilt; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Pieter J Tanis Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 2.102