INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to gain insight into current preferences for type of surgical approach and patient positioning in abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER), to identify whether these factors affect self-reported oncological outcomes and complication rates, and to assess the opinions of members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) with regards to the benefit of a national training programme for APER surgery. METHODS: Members of the ACPGBI were surveyed using a questionnaire designed to examine surgeon/departmental demographics, type of APER practised, audit of results and complications, opinions regarding extralevator APER (ELAPER) and opinions regarding the potential benefit of a national training programme. RESULTS: According to the survey, 62% of surgeons perform perineal dissection in the supine position and 57% perform a standard APER technique. Surgeons who only practise colorectal surgery (p=0.002) and surgeons performing prone dissection (p<0.0001) are more likely to perform ELAPER. Three-quarters (76%) audit their results for perineal wound complication rates. Over 80% audit their oncological outcomes. The vast majority (94.6%) of those who perform ELAPER believe there is a benefit to this method while 59.6% of those who do not perform ELAPER still believe there is a benefit to ELAPER. Only 50% feel that there should be a national training programme. CONCLUSIONS: There is a distinct discordance with regards to the APER technique. Among UK colorectal surgeons, although a significant proportion favours ELAPER, there remains a larger proportion still performing standard APER techniques.
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to gain insight into current preferences for type of surgical approach and patient positioning in abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER), to identify whether these factors affect self-reported oncological outcomes and complication rates, and to assess the opinions of members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) with regards to the benefit of a national training programme for APER surgery. METHODS: Members of the ACPGBI were surveyed using a questionnaire designed to examine surgeon/departmental demographics, type of APER practised, audit of results and complications, opinions regarding extralevator APER (ELAPER) and opinions regarding the potential benefit of a national training programme. RESULTS: According to the survey, 62% of surgeons perform perineal dissection in the supine position and 57% perform a standard APER technique. Surgeons who only practise colorectal surgery (p=0.002) and surgeons performing prone dissection (p<0.0001) are more likely to perform ELAPER. Three-quarters (76%) audit their results for perineal wound complication rates. Over 80% audit their oncological outcomes. The vast majority (94.6%) of those who perform ELAPER believe there is a benefit to this method while 59.6% of those who do not perform ELAPER still believe there is a benefit to ELAPER. Only 50% feel that there should be a national training programme. CONCLUSIONS: There is a distinct discordance with regards to the APER technique. Among UK colorectal surgeons, although a significant proportion favours ELAPER, there remains a larger proportion still performing standard APER techniques.
Authors: Luis Felipe Chavarriaga; Edward Lin; Albert Losken; Michael W Cook; Louis O Jeansonne; Brent C White; John F Sweeney; John R Galloway; S Scott Davis Journal: Am Surg Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Henry S Tilney; Alexander G Heriot; Sanjay Purkayastha; Anthony Antoniou; Paul Aylin; Ara W Darzi; Paris P Tekkis Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jose Wilson B Mesquita-Neto; Hassan Mouzaihem; Francisco Igor B Macedo; Lance K Heilbrun; Donald W Weaver; Steve Kim Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 3.454