Hui-Chuan Yu1, Hui Peng, Xiao-Sheng He, Ri-Sheng Zhao. 1. Department of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510655, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Whether the introduction of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) improves survival and safety remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all comparative studies to define the efficacy and safety of ELAPE and standard abdominoperineal excision (APE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search for all major databases and relevant journals from inception to July 2013 without restriction on languages or regions was performed. Outcome measures were the oncological parameters of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, intraoperative bowel perforation (IOP), and local recurrence, as well as other parameters of blood loss, operative time, length of hospitalization, and postoperative complication. The test of heterogeneity was performed with the Q statistic. RESULTS: A total of 949 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Oncological pooled estimates of intraoperative bowel perforation rate (RR 0.34; 95 % CI 0.21-0.54; P < 0.00001), CRM involvement (RR 0.44; 95 % CI 0.34-0.56; P < 0.00001), and local recurrence (RR 0.32; 95 % CI 0.14-0.74; P = 0.008) all showed outcomes that were significantly lower in ELAPE than in APE. A similar incidence of postoperative complication was attributed to both groups, including overall complication (RR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.66-1.32; P = 0.69), perineal wound complication (RR 0.72; 95 % CI 0.33-1.55; P = 0.39), and urinary dysfunction (RR 1.53; 95 % CI 0.88-2.67; P = 0.13). CONCLUSION: ELAPE has a lower intraoperative bowel perforation rate, positive CRM rate, and local recurrence rate than APE. There is evidence that in selected low rectal cancer patients, ELAPE is a more efficient and equally safe option to replace APE. Due to the inherent limitations of the present study, future randomized controlled trials will be useful to confirm this conclusion.
PURPOSE: Whether the introduction of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) improves survival and safety remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all comparative studies to define the efficacy and safety of ELAPE and standard abdominoperineal excision (APE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search for all major databases and relevant journals from inception to July 2013 without restriction on languages or regions was performed. Outcome measures were the oncological parameters of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, intraoperative bowel perforation (IOP), and local recurrence, as well as other parameters of blood loss, operative time, length of hospitalization, and postoperative complication. The test of heterogeneity was performed with the Q statistic. RESULTS: A total of 949 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Oncological pooled estimates of intraoperative bowel perforation rate (RR 0.34; 95 % CI 0.21-0.54; P < 0.00001), CRM involvement (RR 0.44; 95 % CI 0.34-0.56; P < 0.00001), and local recurrence (RR 0.32; 95 % CI 0.14-0.74; P = 0.008) all showed outcomes that were significantly lower in ELAPE than in APE. A similar incidence of postoperative complication was attributed to both groups, including overall complication (RR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.66-1.32; P = 0.69), perineal wound complication (RR 0.72; 95 % CI 0.33-1.55; P = 0.39), and urinary dysfunction (RR 1.53; 95 % CI 0.88-2.67; P = 0.13). CONCLUSION: ELAPE has a lower intraoperative bowel perforation rate, positive CRM rate, and local recurrence rate than APE. There is evidence that in selected low rectal cancerpatients, ELAPE is a more efficient and equally safe option to replace APE. Due to the inherent limitations of the present study, future randomized controlled trials will be useful to confirm this conclusion.
Authors: P G Vaughan-Shaw; T Cheung; J S Knight; P H Nichols; S A Pilkington; A H Mirnezami Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 3.781
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: Ingrid S Martijnse; Ralph L Dudink; Nicholas P West; Dareczka Wasowicz; Grard A Nieuwenhuijzen; Ineke van Lijnschoten; Hendrik Martijn; Valery E Lemmens; Cornelis J van de Velde; Iris D Nagtegaal; Phil Quirke; Harm J Rutten Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-08-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: E Angenete; A Correa-Marinez; J Heath; E González; A Wedin; M Prytz; D Asplund; E Haglind Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 2.571
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: Angelita Habr-Gama; Guilherme P São Julião; Adrian Mattacheo; Luiz Felipe de Campos-Lobato; Edgar Aleman; Bruna B Vailati; Joaquim Gama-Rodrigues; Rodrigo Oliva Perez Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Azah A Althumairi; Joseph K Canner; Susan L Gearhart; Bashar Safar; Justin Sacks; Jonathan E Efron Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 3.352