Z Shen1, Y Ye2, X Zhang1, Q Xie1, M Yin1, X Yang1, K Jiang1, B Liang1, S Wang3. 1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, PR China. 2. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, PR China. Electronic address: yeyingjiang@pkuph.edu.cn. 3. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, PR China. Electronic address: shanwang60@sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: Sixty-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. RESULTS: Blood 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). CONCLUSIONS: ELAPE 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.
BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: Sixty-nine lower rectal cancerpatients 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. RESULTS:Blood 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). CONCLUSIONS: ELAPE procedure with definitive anatomic landmarks demonstrated surgical safety and decreased local recurrence for lower rectal cancerpatients including the elderly, but there were no survival improvements in compared to conventional APE procedure.
Authors: Anu Carpelan; J Karvonen; P Varpe; A Rantala; A Kaljonen; J Grönroos; H Huhtinen Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 2.571